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.
206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9951496)
81. The challenges of monitoring glaucoma progression. Termote K; Zeyen T Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2010; (314):25-32. PubMed ID: 20480748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
82. [Contribution of large clinical studies to daily practices]. Bron A J Fr Ophtalmol; 2004 Jun; 27(6 Pt 2):689-92. PubMed ID: 15319748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
83. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement in the interpretation of visual fields in glaucoma. King AJ; Farnworth D; Thompson JR Eye (Lond); 1997; 11 ( Pt 5)():687-91. PubMed ID: 9474319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
84. [Study on the progression of visual field defect and clinical factors in normal-tension glaucoma]. Tanaka C; Yamazaki Y; Yokoyama H Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 2000 Aug; 104(8):590-5. PubMed ID: 10979301 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
85. Comparison of perimetric Glaucoma Staging Systems in Asians with primary glaucoma. Hoang TT; Van Bui A; Nguyen V; McCluskey PJ; Grigg JR; Skalicky SE Eye (Lond); 2021 Mar; 35(3):973-978. PubMed ID: 32518400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
86. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Spry PG; Johnson CA Surv Ophthalmol; 2002; 47(2):158-73. PubMed ID: 11918896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
87. Performance of perimetric glaucoma staging systems and their preference patterns among the Indian eye care practitioners. Shirodker SSS; Meethal NSK; Mazumdar D; Asokan R Indian J Ophthalmol; 2024 Mar; 72(3):447-451. PubMed ID: 38421292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
88. Severity and stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. Viswanathan AC; McNaught AI; Poinoosawmy D; Fontana L; Crabb DP; Fitzke FW; Hitchings RA Arch Ophthalmol; 1999 Apr; 117(4):450-4. PubMed ID: 10206571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
89. Agreement of visual field interpretation among glaucoma specialists and comprehensive ophthalmologists: comparison of time and methods. Lin AP; Katz LJ; Spaeth GL; Moster MR; Henderer JD; Schmidt CM; Myers JS Br J Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 95(6):828-31. PubMed ID: 20956271 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
91. Correlation of visual field with quality-of-life measures at diagnosis in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). Mills RP; Janz NK; Wren PA; Guire KE J Glaucoma; 2001 Jun; 10(3):192-8. PubMed ID: 11442181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
93. On the accuracy of measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Jansonius NM Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 94(10):1404-5. PubMed ID: 20554508 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
95. Perimetry, tonometry and epidemiology: the fate of glaucoma management. Heijl A Acta Ophthalmol; 2011 Jun; 89(4):309-15. PubMed ID: 21615711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
96. Progression detection in glaucoma can be made more efficient by using a variable interval between successive visual field tests. Jansonius NM Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2007 Nov; 245(11):1647-51. PubMed ID: 17437124 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
97. [Clinical function test in glaucoma]. Aulhorn E Buch Augenarzt; 1971; 56():15-27. PubMed ID: 4931664 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
98. Clinical research and statistical analysis of a visual field awareness system. Gottlieb DD; Freeman P; Williams M J Am Optom Assoc; 1992 Aug; 63(8):581-8. PubMed ID: 1512410 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]