Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 102

1.

Visual field examination using a video projector: comparison with Humphrey perimeter.

Brouzas D, Tsapakis S, Nitoda E, Moschos MM.

Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar 11;8:523-8. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S54524. eCollection 2014.

2.

Visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses compared with the Humphrey perimeter.

Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A, Droutsas K, Andreanos K, Moschos MM, Brouzas D.

Clin Ophthalmol. 2017 Aug 7;11:1431-1443. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S131160. eCollection 2017.

3.

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.

PMID:
8576536
4.
5.
6.

Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial.

Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW.

Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 Nov;128(5):543-53.

PMID:
10577521
7.

Detection of Visual Field Loss in Pituitary Disease: Peripheral Kinetic Versus Central Static.

Rowe FJ, Cheyne CP, García-Fiñana M, Noonan CP, Howard C, Smith J, Adeoye J.

Neuroophthalmology. 2015 May 13;39(3):116-124. eCollection 2015 Jun.

8.

The ability of Medmont M600 automated perimetry to detect threats to fixation.

Zhang L, Drance SM, Douglas GR.

J Glaucoma. 1997 Aug;6(4):259-62.

PMID:
9264306
9.

A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields.

Riemann CD, Hanson S, Foster JA.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2000 Jan;118(1):65-9.

PMID:
10636416
10.

Comparison of Humphrey MATRIX and Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard strategy in detecting early glaucomatous visual field loss.

Prema R, George R, Hemamalini A, Sathyamangalam Ve R, Baskaran M, Vijaya L.

Indian J Ophthalmol. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):207-11. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.49395.

11.

Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking.

Murray IC, Fleck BW, Brash HM, Macrae ME, Tan LL, Minns RA.

Ophthalmology. 2009 Oct;116(10):2017-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.03.015. Epub 2009 Jun 27.

PMID:
19560207
12.
13.

[Computerized and manual perimetry in patients with severe temporal visual field defects due to suprasellar tumors].

Pereira A, Monteiro ML.

Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2005 Sep-Oct;68(5):587-91. Epub 2005 Nov 28. Portuguese.

14.

Comparison of the Humphrey Field Analyser and Humphrey Matrix Perimeter for the evaluation of glaucoma patients.

Chen YH, Wu JN, Chen JT, Lu DW.

Ophthalmologica. 2008;222(6):400-7. doi: 10.1159/000154203. Epub 2008 Sep 10.

PMID:
18781091
15.
16.

A new visual field test in empty sella syndrome: rarebit perimetry.

Yavas GF, Küsbeci T, Eser O, Ermis SS, Coşar M, Oztürk F.

Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jul-Aug;18(4):628-32.

PMID:
18609487
17.

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. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2009.161240. Epub 2010 May 6.

PMID:
20447958
18.

Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry and standard achromatic computerized perimetry in patients with glaucoma.

Serguhn S, Spiegel D.

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001 Jun;239(5):351-5.

PMID:
11482338
19.
20.

[Data bank for analysis of the normal visual field using the 30/1 central program of the automated Humphrey perimeter].

Béchetoille A, Dykman P, Muratet JY.

J Fr Ophtalmol. 1986;9(12):837-41. French.

PMID:
3571842

Supplemental Content

Support Center