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

  • 41. [Frequency-doubling perimetry in retrochiasmatic disorders].
    Cerio-Ramsden CD, Muñoz Negrete FJ, M Moro JG, Rebolleda G.
    Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2003 Mar; 78(3):143-9. PubMed ID: 12677491
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 42.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 43. Visual field defects in children with congenital glaucoma.
    de Souza EC, Berezovsky A, Morales PH, de Arruda Mello PA, de Oliveira Bonomo PP, Salomão SR.
    J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus; 2000 Mar; 37(5):266-72. PubMed ID: 11020107
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 44. Humphrey Matrix perimetry in optic nerve and chiasmal disorders: comparison with Humphrey SITA standard 24-2.
    Huang CQ, Carolan J, Redline D, Taravati P, Woodward KR, Johnson CA, Wall M, Keltner JL.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 49(3):917-23. PubMed ID: 18326712
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 45. Discriminating ability of Humphrey matrix perimetry in early glaucoma patients.
    Hong S, Chung W, Hong YJ, Seong GJ.
    Ophthalmologica; 2007 Mar; 221(3):195-9. PubMed ID: 17440283
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 46.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 47. Comparing threshold visual fields between the Dicon TKS 4000 automated perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Wong AY, Dodge RM, Remington LA.
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Nov; 66(11):706-11. PubMed ID: 8576536
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 48.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 49.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 50.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 51.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 52.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 53.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 54.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 55. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm.
    Newkirk MR, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Oct; 47(10):4632-7. PubMed ID: 17003461
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 56.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 57.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 58.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 59. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 60.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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