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
156 related items for PubMed ID: 16769830
21. Comparison of 24-2 Faster, Fast, and Standard Programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for Perimetry in Patients With Manifest and Suspect Glaucoma. Thulasidas M, Patyal S. J Glaucoma; 2020 Nov; 29(11):1070-1076. PubMed ID: 32890104 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Bourne RR, Jahanbakhsh K, Boden C, Zangwill LM, Hoffmann EM, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Sample PA. Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Dec; 144(6):908-913. PubMed ID: 17919445 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC, Cunliffe IA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Aug; 40(9):1998-2009. PubMed ID: 10440254 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetry. Wall M, Doyle CK, Zamba KD, Artes P, Johnson CA. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Feb 15; 54(2):1345-51. PubMed ID: 23341012 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for central visual field defects unrelated to nerve fiber layer. Hirasawa K, Shoji N. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 May 15; 254(5):845-54. PubMed ID: 26279004 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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 May 15; 17(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 18414106 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Repeatability of the Glaucoma Hemifield Test in automated perimetry. Katz J, Quigley HA, Sommer A. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jul 15; 36(8):1658-64. PubMed ID: 7601645 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors. Singh MD, Jain K. Indian J Ophthalmol; 2017 Nov 15; 65(11):1198-1202. PubMed ID: 29133651 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, Jayakumar AJ, Pandi GT, Mandal AK, Honavar SG. Ophthalmology; 2000 Jul 15; 107(7):1303-8. PubMed ID: 10889102 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter? Kelly SR, Bryan SR, Crabb DP. Acta Ophthalmol; 2019 Sep 15; 97(6):e833-e838. PubMed ID: 30801992 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Evaluation of threshold estimation and learning effect of two perimetric strategies, SITA Fast and CLIP, in damaged visual fields. Capris P, Autuori S, Capris E, Papadia M. Eur J Ophthalmol; 2008 Sep 15; 18(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 18320509 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Bengtsson B. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2003 Mar 15; 44(3):1388-94. PubMed ID: 12601072 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. A Strategy for Seeding Point Error Assessment for Retesting (SPEAR) in Perimetry Applied to Normal Subjects, Glaucoma Suspects, and Patients With Glaucoma. Phu J, Kalloniatis M. Am J Ophthalmol; 2021 Jan 15; 221():115-130. PubMed ID: 32777379 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Clinical Evaluation of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Faster Compared With Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm-Standard in Normal Subjects, Glaucoma Suspects, and Patients With Glaucoma. Phu J, Khuu SK, Agar A, Kalloniatis M. Am J Ophthalmol; 2019 Dec 15; 208():251-264. PubMed ID: 31470001 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. 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 15; 48(3):1173-80. PubMed ID: 17325161 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of the Humphrey swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. Sharma AK, Goldberg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. J Glaucoma; 2000 Feb 15; 9(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10708227 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. [Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA Standard and SITA Fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma]. Nordmann JP, Brion F, Hamard P, Mouton-Chopin D. J Fr Ophtalmol; 1998 Oct 15; 21(8):549-54. PubMed ID: 9833219 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Frontloading SITA-Faster Can Increase Frequency and Reliability of Visual Field Testing at Minimal Time Cost. Tan JCK, Kalloniatis M, Phu J. Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2023 Oct 15; 6(5):445-456. PubMed ID: 36958625 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Mild learning effect of short-wavelength automated perimetry using SITA program. Fogagnolo P, Tanga L, Rossetti L, Oddone F, Manni G, Orzalesi N, Centofanti M. J Glaucoma; 2010 Oct 15; 19(5):319-23. PubMed ID: 19855293 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. A Comparison of the Visual Field Parameters of SITA Faster and SITA Standard Strategies in Glaucoma. Lavanya R, Riyazuddin M, Dasari S, Puttaiah NK, Venugopal JP, Pradhan ZS, Devi S, Sreenivasaiah S, Ganeshrao SB, Rao HL. J Glaucoma; 2020 Sep 15; 29(9):783-788. PubMed ID: 32459685 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]