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

290 related items for PubMed ID: 8576536

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters.
    Bass SJ, Feldman J.
    Optometry; 2000 Oct; 71(10):643-52. PubMed ID: 11063269
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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]

  • 7. Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Glass E, Schaumberger M, Lachenmayr BJ.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Aug; 36(9):1847-54. PubMed ID: 7635658
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer.
    Schaumberger M, Schäfer B, Lachenmayr BJ.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1995 Jun; 36(7):1390-7. PubMed ID: 7775117
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Comparison of threshold visual perimetry and objective pupil perimetry in clinical patients.
    Yoshitomi T, Matsui T, Tanakadate A, Ishikawa S.
    J Neuroophthalmol; 1999 Jun; 19(2):89-99. PubMed ID: 10380129
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects.
    Chauhan BC, Johnson CA.
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1999 Mar; 40(3):648-56. PubMed ID: 10067968
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Different strategies for Humphrey automated perimetry: FASTPAC, SITA standard and SITA fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.
    Roggen X, Herman K, Van Malderen L, Devos M, Spileers W.
    Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 2001 Mar; (279):23-33. PubMed ID: 11344712
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Comparison of a five-degree visual field between two programs of different testing field range.
    Fujimoto N.
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 May; 143(5):866-7. PubMed ID: 17452172
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. 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]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 15.