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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

187 related items for PubMed ID: 11222348

  • 1. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry.
    Casson R, James B, Rubinstein A, Ali H.
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2001 Mar; 85(3):360-2. PubMed ID: 11222348
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice.
    Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P, Taguri A, King AJ.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Mar; 133(3):327-32. PubMed ID: 11860968
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. A comparison between Humphrey and frequency doubling perimetry for chiasmal visual field defects.
    Noval S, Contreras I, Rebolleda G, Muñoz-Negrete FJ, Ruiz de Zárate B.
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2005 Mar; 15(6):739-45. PubMed ID: 16329059
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Comparison of the frequency doubling technology screening algorithm and the Humphrey 24-2 SITA-FAST in a large eye screening.
    Allen CS, Sponsel WE, Trigo Y, Dirks MS, Flynn WJ.
    Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2002 Feb; 30(1):8-14. PubMed ID: 11885802
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency-doubling technology perimetry.
    Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, Hayashi T, Nawa T, Miyamoto T, Hiro H, Iwasaki A, Sugita M, Glaucoma Screening Project (GSP) Study Group.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2002 Oct; 134(4):529-37. PubMed ID: 12383809
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry.
    Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, Leen MM, Lieberman MF, Stamper RL, Stanford DC.
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1999 Nov; 117(11):1479-84. PubMed ID: 10565516
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Test-retest variability in glaucoma patients tested with C-20-1 screening-mode frequency doubling technology perimetry.
    Brush MB, Chen PP.
    J Glaucoma; 2004 Aug; 13(4):273-7. PubMed ID: 15226654
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Glaucoma progression detection with frequency doubling technology (FDT) compared to standard automated perimetry (SAP) in the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study.
    Wesselink C, Jansonius NM.
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2017 Sep; 37(5):594-601. PubMed ID: 28836391
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology.
    Quigley HA.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1998 Jun; 125(6):819-29. PubMed ID: 9645719
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry using the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 threshold strategy.
    Spry PG, Hussin HM, Sparrow JM.
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2005 Aug; 89(8):1031-5. PubMed ID: 16024860
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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, Tajimi Study Group.
    Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17070580
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Glaucoma diagnostics.
    Geimer SA.
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Feb; 91 Thesis 1():1-32. PubMed ID: 23384049
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice.
    Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2000 Mar; 129(3):328-33. PubMed ID: 10704548
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Frequency doubling perimetry and the detection of eye disease in the community.
    Cioffi GA, Mansberger S, Spry P, Johnson C, Van Buskirk EM.
    Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2000 Mar; 98():195-9; discussion 199-202. PubMed ID: 11190023
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Frequency doubling perimetry in patients with mild and moderate pituitary tumor-associated visual field defects detected by conventional perimetry.
    Monteiro ML, Moura FC, Cunha LP.
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2007 Mar; 70(2):323-9. PubMed ID: 17589707
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma.
    Liu S, Lam S, Weinreb RN, Ye C, Cheung CY, Lai G, Lam DS, Leung CK.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Sep 21; 52(10):7325-31. PubMed ID: 21810975
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Learning effects among perimetric novices in frequency doubling technology perimetry.
    Joson PJ, Kamantigue ME, Chen PP.
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Apr 21; 109(4):757-60. PubMed ID: 11927436
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry.
    Wall M, Neahring RK, Woodward KR.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2002 Apr 21; 43(4):1277-83. PubMed ID: 11923276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Agreement between frequency doubling perimetry and static perimetry in eyes with high tension glaucoma and normal tension glaucoma.
    Kogure S, Toda Y, Crabb D, Kashiwagi K, Fitzke FW, Tsukahara S.
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2003 May 21; 87(5):604-8. PubMed ID: 12714404
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.