282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9759403)
21. Visual field assessment in glaucoma: comparative evaluation of manual kinetic Goldmann perimetry and automated static perimetry.
Agarwal HC; Gulati V; Sihota R
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2000 Dec; 48(4):301-6. PubMed ID: 11340889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. [Automated and semiautomated perimetry. Comparative trial of 3 devices (Baylor programmer, Friedmann Mark II campimeter, Octopus 2000 R.)].
Pradines F; Delbosc B; Royer J
J Fr Ophtalmol; 1985; 8(2):173-85. PubMed ID: 3891833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Blue-on-yellow visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer in ocular hypertension and glaucoma.
Teesalu P; Airaksinen PJ; Tuulonen A
Ophthalmology; 1998 Nov; 105(11):2077-81. PubMed ID: 9818609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [A comparative analysis of standard automated perimetry and short wavelength automated perimetry in early diagnosis of glaucoma].
Chiseliţă D; Crenguţa MI; Danielescu C; Mihaela NM
Oftalmologia; 2006; 50(2):94-102. PubMed ID: 16927766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. [Correlation of the Heidelberg retinal tomograph, evaluation of the retinal nerve fiber layer and perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucoma].
Skorkovská S; Michálek J; Sedlacík M; Masková Z; Kocí J
Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2007 Nov; 63(6):403-14. PubMed ID: 18062164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, SITA Standard and SITA Fast perimetry in perimetrically inexperienced individuals.
Pierre-Filho Pde T; Schimiti RB; de Vasconcellos JP; Costa VP
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2006 Jun; 84(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 16704696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Evaluation of changes in the visual field in glaucoma during examination with white and colored stimuli].
Skorkovská S; Stará S; Kocí J
Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2003 Jan; 59(1):28-32. PubMed ID: 12680119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma].
Nowomiejska K; Paetzold J; Krapp E; Rejdak R; Zagórski Z; Schiefer U
Klin Oczna; 2004; 106(1-2 Suppl):231-3. PubMed ID: 15510509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Computerized perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucoma].
Mocanu C
Oftalmologia; 1993; 37(3):243-50. PubMed ID: 8338826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Relationship between Humphrey 30-2 SITA Standard Test, Matrix 30-2 threshold test, and Heidelberg retina tomograph in ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients.
Bozkurt B; Yilmaz PT; Irkec M
J Glaucoma; 2008; 17(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 18414106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Comparison of data given by the Friedmann analyzer and Octopus 2000 automatic perimeter. Apropos of a case].
Haut J; Van Effenterre G; Rached JA; M'Rad N; Aaron C
Bull Soc Ophtalmol Fr; 1986 Mar; 86(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 3542262
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. [Detectability of glaucomatous visual field defects with the Octopus automatic perimeter. A comparison between program G-1 and programs 31 and 32 and their combinations].
Gloor B; Gloor E
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1986 Jan; 188(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 3754292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.
Springer C; Bültmann S; Völcker HE; Rohrschneider K
Ophthalmology; 2005 May; 112(5):848-54. PubMed ID: 15878065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in open-angle glaucoma eyes with hemifield visual field damage: comparison of high-tension and normal-tension groups.
Murata H; Tomidokoro A; Matsuo H; Tomita G; Araie M
J Glaucoma; 2007 Jan; 16(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 17224743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [Study of changes in the central visual field in early computer-assisted diagnosis of primary open-angle glaucoma].
Dzhumova MF; Birich TA
Vestn Oftalmol; 1994; 110(3):3-5. PubMed ID: 7810041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of the high specificity Screening Program (C-20-1) of the Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimeter in clinical practice.
North RV; Jones AL; Hunter E; Morgan JE; Wild JM
Eye (Lond); 2006 Jun; 20(6):681-7. PubMed ID: 15999135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Influence of Test Strategy on Octopus Perimeter Cluster Mean Defect Values: Adaptive Bracketing Normal Strategy Versus Tendency-oriented Perimetry.
Holló G
J Glaucoma; 2016 Oct; 25(10):830-834. PubMed ID: 27300642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
