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

1344 related items for PubMed ID: 19560207

  • 21. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Comparison of standard automated perimetry with matrix frequency-doubling technology in patients with resolved optic neuritis.
    Sakai T, Matsushima M, Shikishima K, Kitahara K.
    Ophthalmology; 2007 May; 114(5):949-56. PubMed ID: 17382395
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma].
    Nowomiejska K, Paetzold J, Krapp E, Rejdak R, Zagórski Z, Schiefer U.
    Klin Oczna; 2004 May; 106(1-2 Suppl):231-3. PubMed ID: 15510509
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. [Frequency doubling perimetry in terminal visual field defects].
    Muñoz-Negrete FJ, Rebolleda G, González Martín-Moro J, Cerio-Ramsden CD.
    Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2003 Apr; 78(4):203-9. PubMed ID: 12743844
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Repeatability of frequency doubling technology perimetry (20-1 screening program) and the effect of pupillary dilatation on interpretation.
    Parikh R, Muliyil J, George R, Bhat S, Thomas R.
    Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2008 Apr; 15(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 18300088
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population.
    Rowe FJ, Sueke H, Gawley SD.
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2010 Jun; 94(6):757-62. PubMed ID: 20447958
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry.
    Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Feb; 50(2):974-9. PubMed ID: 18952921
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Test-retest variability for standard automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry in diabetic patients.
    Bengtsson B, Hellgren KJ, Agardh E.
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 86(2):170-6. PubMed ID: 17935606
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. [FDT versus automated standard perimetry in healthy subjects].
    Chiseliţa D, Ioana MC, Danielescu C, Mihaela NM.
    Oftalmologia; 2006 Mar; 50(3):99-104. PubMed ID: 17144515
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Progression of visual field defects in leber hereditary optic neuropathy: experience of the LHON treatment trial.
    Newman NJ, Biousse V, Newman SA, Bhatti MT, Hamilton SR, Farris BK, Lesser RL, Turbin RE.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Jun; 141(6):1061-1067. PubMed ID: 16765674
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Pupillary dilation and its effects on automated perimetry results.
    Kudrna GR, Stanley MA, Remington LA.
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):675-80. PubMed ID: 8576532
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Multiple-stimulus presentation and voice control in automated perimetry.
    Mueller AJ, Lachenmayr BJ, Eckstein A, Hölzl M.
    Ger J Ophthalmol; 1992 Nov; 1(2):91-5. PubMed ID: 1477632
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Subjective detection of visual field defects using home TV set.
    Shirato S, Adachi M, Hara T.
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1991 Nov; 35(3):273-81. PubMed ID: 1770667
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects and visual field abnormalities by humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry.
    Lee MJ, Kim DM, Jeoung JW, Hwang SS, Kim TW, Park KH.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Jun; 143(6):1056-8. PubMed ID: 17524781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Impact of diabetes on glaucoma screening using frequency-doubling perimetry.
    Realini T, Lai MQ, Barber L.
    Ophthalmology; 2004 Nov; 111(11):2133-6. PubMed ID: 15522382
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. The usefulness of the Noise-Field Test as a screening method for visual field defects.
    Adachi M, Shirato S.
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 1994 Mar; 38(4):392-9. PubMed ID: 7723208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Does frequency doubling technology perimetry reliably detect neurological visual field defects?
    Fong KC, Byles DB, Constable PH.
    Eye (Lond); 2003 Apr; 17(3):330-3. PubMed ID: 12724694
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Rotary Diamond Chart--a new visual field screening device.
    Freed DM, Semes LP, Potter JW.
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1992 Feb; 63(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 1583271
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. A child with epilepsy in whom multifocal VEPs facilitated the objective measurement of the visual field.
    Yukawa E, Kim YJ, Kawasaki K, Taketani F, Hara Y.
    Epilepsia; 2005 Apr; 46(4):577-9. PubMed ID: 15816954
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 68.