139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9635382)
1. Comparison of diagnostic performance and fixation control of two automated perimeters.
Asman P; Fingeret M
J Am Optom Assoc; 1997 Dec; 68(12):763-8. PubMed ID: 9635382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The efficacy of the dicon screening field to detect eyes with glaucomatous field loss by Humphrey threshold testing.
Huang AS; Smith SD; Quigley HA
J Glaucoma; 1998 Jun; 7(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 9627854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
Wong AY; Dodge RM; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
Bass SJ; Feldman J
Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.
Artes PH; Hutchison DM; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jul; 46(7):2451-7. PubMed ID: 15980235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2.
Huang CQ; Carolan J; Redline D; Taravati P; Woodward KR; Johnson CA; Wall M; Keltner JL
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):917-23. PubMed ID: 18326712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study.
Iwase A; Tomidokoro A; Araie M; Shirato S; Shimizu H; Kitazawa Y;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giaconi JA; Manassakorn A; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):931-7. PubMed ID: 17397926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Matched comparison of Goldmann perimetry and automated two-zone suprathreshold Dicon perimetry in open-angle glaucoma.
Levy NS; Ellis E
Ann Ophthalmol; 1985 Apr; 17(4):245-9. PubMed ID: 4004003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Automated flicker perimetry in glaucoma using Octopus 311: a comparative study with the Humphrey Matrix.
Matsumoto C; Takada S; Okuyama S; Arimura E; Hashimoto S; Shimomura Y
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Apr; 84(2):210-5. PubMed ID: 16637839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
Newkirk MR; Gardiner SK; Demirel S; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Different strategies for Humphrey automated perimetry: FASTPAC, SITA standard and SITA fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
Roggen X; Herman K; Van Malderen L; Devos M; Spileers W
Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2001; (279):23-33. PubMed ID: 11344712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma.
Leeprechanon N; Giangiacomo A; Fontana H; Hoffman D; Caprioli J
Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Feb; 143(2):263-271. PubMed ID: 17178091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A clinical comparison of visual field testing between Goldmann-type manual perimetry and the Marco MT-336 automated perimeter.
Jennings BJ; Drake SA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1991 Dec; 62(12):914-22. PubMed ID: 1814984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population.
Rowe FJ; Sueke H; Gawley SD
Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Jun; 94(6):757-62. PubMed ID: 20447958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of the pattern- and total deviation-based Glaucoma Change Probability programs.
Katz J
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Apr; 41(5):1012-6. PubMed ID: 10752935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma.
Fortune B; Demirel S; Zhang X; Hood DC; Patterson E; Jamil A; Mansberger SL; Cioffi GA; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2007 Mar; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients.
Horn FK; Wakili N; Jünemann AM; Korth M
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Aug; 240(8):658-65. PubMed ID: 12192460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of the Synemed Glaucoma and the Humphrey 30-2 threshold perimetry tests.
Harwood LW; Remington LA
J Am Optom Assoc; 1999 Apr; 70(4):240-4. PubMed ID: 10457700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Kinetic and static fixation methods in automated threshold perimetry.
Asman P; Fingeret M; Robin A; Wild J; Pacey I; Greenfield D; Liebmann J; Ritch R
J Glaucoma; 1999 Oct; 8(5):290-6. PubMed ID: 10529927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
