206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9951496)
21. 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]
22. Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.
Katz J; Congdon N; Friedman DS
Arch Ophthalmol; 1999 Sep; 117(9):1137-42. PubMed ID: 10496384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study.
Haymes SA; Hutchison DM; McCormick TA; Varma DK; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Feb; 46(2):547-54. PubMed ID: 15671281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Pointwise linear regression analysis for detection of visual field progression with absolute versus corrected threshold sensitivities.
Manassakorn A; Nouri-Mahdavi K; Koucheki B; Law SK; Caprioli J
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Jul; 47(7):2896-903. PubMed ID: 16799031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial.
Bengtsson B; Leske MC; Hyman L; Heijl A;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Feb; 114(2):205-9. PubMed ID: 17097736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression.
Vesti E; Johnson CA; Chauhan BC
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Sep; 44(9):3873-9. PubMed ID: 12939303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Progression of visual field loss in untreated glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects in St. Lucia, West Indies.
Wilson MR; Kosoko O; Cowan CL; Sample PA; Johnson CA; Haynatzki G; Enger C; Crandall D
Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Sep; 134(3):399-405. PubMed ID: 12208252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. [Update on prospective glaucoma intervention studies].
Arend KO; Redbrake C
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2005 Oct; 222(10):807-13. PubMed ID: 16240274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Monitoring glaucomatous progression using a novel Heidelberg Retina Tomograph event analysis.
Fayers T; Strouthidis NG; Garway-Heath DF
Ophthalmology; 2007 Nov; 114(11):1973-80. PubMed ID: 17662455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Pointwise linear regression for evaluation of visual field outcomes and comparison with the advanced glaucoma intervention study methods.
Nouri-Mahdavi K; Caprioli J; Coleman AL; Hoffman D; Gaasterland D
Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 Feb; 123(2):193-9. PubMed ID: 15710815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
Chauhan BC; Johnson CA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Scanning laser polarimetry of the retinal nerve fiber layer in perimetrically unaffected eyes of glaucoma patients.
Reus NJ; Lemij HG
Ophthalmology; 2004 Dec; 111(12):2199-203. PubMed ID: 15582074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Comparison of conventional and pattern discrimination perimetry in a prospective study of glaucoma patients.
Ansari I; Chauhan BC; McCormick TA; LeBlanc RP
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2000 Dec; 41(13):4150-7. PubMed ID: 11095608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Scoring of visual field measured through Humphrey perimetry: principal component varimax rotation followed by validated cluster analysis.
Nordmann JP; Mesbah M; Berdeaux G
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Sep; 46(9):3169-76. PubMed ID: 16123416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Scanning laser polarimetry using variable corneal compensation in the detection of glaucoma with localized visual field defects.
Kook MS; Cho HS; Seong M; Choi J
Ophthalmology; 2005 Nov; 112(11):1970-8. PubMed ID: 16185765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of an automated confrontation testing device versus finger counting in the detection of field loss.
Bass SJ; Cooper J; Feldman J; Horn D
Optometry; 2007 Aug; 78(8):390-5. PubMed ID: 17662927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
