172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9645724)
1. Threshold perimetry of each eye with both eyes open in patients with monocular functional (nonorganic) and organic vision loss.
Martin TJ
Am J Ophthalmol; 1998 Jun; 125(6):857-64. PubMed ID: 9645724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Threshold perimetry of each eye with both eyes open in patients with monocular functional (nonorganic) and organic vision loss.
Hoffman DJ; Wilson R
Am J Ophthalmol; 1999 Feb; 127(2):242-3. PubMed ID: 10030586
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry.
Kumagai T; Shoji T; Yoshikawa Y; Mine I; Kanno J; Ishii H; Saito A; Ishikawa S; Kimura I; Shinoda K
Br J Ophthalmol; 2020 Nov; 104(11):1258-1534. PubMed ID: 32152139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated perimetry in amblyopia: a generalized depression.
Donahue SP; Wall M; Kutzko KE; Kardon RH
Am J Ophthalmol; 1999 Mar; 127(3):312-21. PubMed ID: 10088742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss.
Goldberg I; Graham SL; Klistorner AI
Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Jan; 133(1):29-39. PubMed ID: 11755837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Five-year forecasts of the Visual Field Index (VFI) with binocular and monocular visual fields.
Asaoka R; Russell RA; Malik R; Garway-Heath DF; Crabb DP
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2013 May; 251(5):1335-41. PubMed ID: 23224148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry.
Hood DC; Thienprasiddhi P; Greenstein VC; Winn BJ; Ohri N; Liebmann JM; Ritch R
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Feb; 45(2):492-8. PubMed ID: 14744890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry.
Patel A; Wollstein G; Ishikawa H; Schuman JS
Ophthalmology; 2007 Mar; 114(3):480-7. PubMed ID: 17123623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of ocular dominance on visual field testing.
Spry PG; Furber JE; Harrad RA
Optom Vis Sci; 2002 Feb; 79(2):93-7. PubMed ID: 11871400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Visual Field Testing with Head-Mounted Perimeter 'imo'.
Matsumoto C; Yamao S; Nomoto H; Takada S; Okuyama S; Kimura S; Yamanaka K; Aihara M; Shimomura Y
PLoS One; 2016; 11(8):e0161974. PubMed ID: 27564382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients.
Blumenthal EZ; Sample PA; Zangwill L; Lee AC; Kono Y; Weinreb RN
Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 10704545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.
Murray IC; Fleck BW; Brash HM; Macrae ME; Tan LL; Minns RA
Ophthalmology; 2009 Oct; 116(10):2017-26. PubMed ID: 19560207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Automated suprathreshold static perimetry screening for detecting neuro-ophthalmologic disease.
Siatkowski RM; Lam BL; Anderson DR; Feuer WJ; Halikman AM
Ophthalmology; 1996 Jun; 103(6):907-17. PubMed ID: 8643246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Predicting binocular visual field sensitivity from monocular visual field results.
Nelson-Quigg JM; Cello K; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jul; 41(8):2212-21. PubMed ID: 10892865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of rates of change between binocular and monocular visual fields.
Chun YS; Shin JH; Park IK
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2015 Jan; 56(1):451-7. PubMed ID: 25564449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold.
Midena E; Radin PP; Convento E; Cavarzeran F
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2007; 17(1):63-8. PubMed ID: 17294384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields.
Riemann CD; Hanson S; Foster JA
Arch Ophthalmol; 2000 Jan; 118(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 10636416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Identification of functional visual field loss by automated static perimetry.
Frisén L
Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 Dec; 92(8):805-9. PubMed ID: 24698019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision.
Jampel HD; Friedman DS; Quigley H; Miller R
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Apr; 43(4):1059-67. PubMed ID: 11923247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing.
Wall M; Punke SG; Stickney TL; Brito CF; Withrow KR; Kardon RH
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Feb; 42(2):528-37. PubMed ID: 11157893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
