These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

80 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9917801)

  • 1. Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary.
    Van Coevorden RE; Mills RP; Chen YY; Barnebey HS
    Ophthalmology; 1999 Jan; 106(1):178-81. PubMed ID: 9917801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Jul; 41(8):2201-4. PubMed ID: 10892863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing.
    Kramer BC; Musch DC; Niziol LM; Weizer JS
    Ophthalmology; 2012 Feb; 119(2):304-7. PubMed ID: 22115714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The reliability of frequency-doubling perimetry in young children.
    Blumenthal EZ; Haddad A; Horani A; Anteby I
    Ophthalmology; 2004 Mar; 111(3):435-9. PubMed ID: 15019315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population.
    Becker K; Semes L
    Optometry; 2003 Mar; 74(3):173-9. PubMed ID: 12645850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Influence of test reliability on the screening performance of frequency-doubling perimetry.
    Heeg GP; Jansonius NM
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Mar; 141(3):585-7. PubMed ID: 16490521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Regional correlation of structure and function in glaucoma, using the Disc Damage Likelihood Scale, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, and visual fields.
    Danesh-Meyer HV; Ku JY; Papchenko TL; Jayasundera T; Hsiang JC; Gamble GD
    Ophthalmology; 2006 Apr; 113(4):603-11. PubMed ID: 16483660
    [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. Converting to SITA-standard from full-threshold visual field testing in the follow-up phase of a clinical trial.
    Musch DC; Gillespie BW; Motyka BM; Niziol LM; Mills RP; Lichter PR
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Aug; 46(8):2755-9. PubMed ID: 16043847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diagnostic sensitivity of fast blue-yellow and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma: a comparison between different test programs.
    Bengtsson B; Heijl A
    Ophthalmology; 2006 Jul; 113(7):1092-7. PubMed ID: 16815399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss.
    Medeiros FA; Sample PA; Weinreb RN
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 May; 137(5):863-71. PubMed ID: 15126151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Visual field quality control in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS).
    Keltner JL; Johnson CA; Cello KE; Bandermann SE; Fan J; Levine RA; Kass MA; Gordon MO;
    J Glaucoma; 2007 Dec; 16(8):665-9. PubMed ID: 18091452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population.
    Akar Y; Yilmaz A; Yucel I
    Ophthalmologica; 2008; 222(5):329-33. PubMed ID: 18617757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients.
    King AJ; Taguri A; Wadood AC; Azuara-Blanco A
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Jun; 240(6):481-7. PubMed ID: 12107516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.
    Topouzis F; Coleman AL; Yu F; Mavroudis L; Anastasopoulos E; Koskosas A; Pappas T; Dimitrakos S; Wilson MR
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 15013863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evidence for a learning effect in short-wavelength automated perimetry.
    Wild JM; Kim LS; Pacey IE; Cunliffe IA
    Ophthalmology; 2006 Feb; 113(2):206-15. PubMed ID: 16458091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.