ライフサイエンスコーパス: standard automated perimetry

1 System and also by mean deviation (MD) from standard automated perimetry.

2 aluated with all three tests as well as with standard automated perimetry.

3 raphy and had their visual field assessed by standard automated perimetry.

4 meters from optical coherence tomography and standard automated perimetry.

5 ncluding gonioscopy, fundus photography, and standard automated perimetry.

6 g of a magnitude likely easily detectable by standard automated perimetry.

7 ent, gonioscopy, dilated ophthalmoscopy, and standard automated perimetry.

8 ices are available to summarize results from standard automated perimetry.

9 t of 3 consecutive abnormal visual fields on standard automated perimetry.

10 in optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and standard automated perimetry.

11 rimetric sensitivity for reliable testing by standard automated perimetry.

12 high-risk ocular hypertension and performed standard automated perimetry.

13 Visual fields were obtained with standard automated perimetry.

14 re evaluated by the mean deviation (MD) from standard automated perimetry.

15 ased on visual field index (VFI) values from standard automated perimetry.

16 d based on the visual field index (VFI) from standard automated perimetry.

17 ents having residual visual field defects on standard automated perimetry.

18 ared against an existing standard technique--standard automated perimetry.

19 F assessments were performed in clinic using standard automated perimetry (4 tests total, per eye).

20 ather than based on isolated parameters from standard automated perimetry (8.5%) or optical coherence

21 All tests were performed with standard automated perimetry and a 24-2 test pattern.

22 Visual fields (VFs) were measured using standard automated perimetry and arranged in series (med

23 coma were examined at 4-month intervals with standard automated perimetry and confocal scanning laser

24 re derived using a validated model combining standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomog

25 Subjects underwent standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomog

26 Estimates of RGC counts were obtained from standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomog

27 VF examinations were performed using standard automated perimetry and rates of change were ca

28 having repeatable visual field defects with standard automated perimetry) and 189 subjects without g

29 , including fundus photography, OCT imaging, standard automated perimetry, and gonioscopy.

30 pants underwent a full clinical examination, standard automated perimetry, and imaging with time-doma

31 complete examination, including gonioscopy, standard automated perimetry, and stereoscopic optic dis

32 /Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) test, standard automated perimetry, and visual acuity (VA).

33 s was comparable to the integrated monocular standard automated perimetry based on point-by-point ass

34 ct demographics, ocular characteristics, and standard automated perimetry data were extracted.

35 d healthy participants received testing with standard automated perimetry every 6 months.

36 time-domain optical coherence tomography and standard automated perimetry every 6 months.

37 Algorithm is replacing Full-Threshold as the standard automated perimetry gold-standard strategy, and

38 ptic disc stereophotograph assessment and/or standard automated perimetry guided progression analysis

39 ten based on pointwise sensitivity data from standard automated perimetry; however, frequency-of seei

40 Standard automated perimetry is being adapted and improv

41 Standard automated perimetry is the current criterion st

42 perior RNFL thickness may predict subsequent standard automated perimetry loss.

43 41 eyes with moderate to advanced glaucoma (standard automated perimetry mean deviation </=-8 dB) wa

44 Standard automated perimetry mean deviation (MD) values

45 tes of visual field loss were assessed using standard automated perimetry mean deviation (SAP MD) dur

46 The subjects were examined annually with standard automated perimetry, optic disc stereophotograp

47 including; intraocular pressure measurement; standard automated perimetry; optical coherence tomograp

48 HT with four or more visual field tests with standard automated perimetry over three or more years an

49 ckened pRNFL was significantly correlated to standard automated perimetry pattern deviations.

50 interval [CI]: 0.23-0.31, P < .001), faster standard automated perimetry rate of progression (TR 0.7

51 reliability indices to judge the quality of standard automated perimetry results are fixation losses

52 Recent studies did not consider standard automated perimetry results as part of inclusio

53 Ninety-nine eyes with repeatable standard automated perimetry results showing glaucomatou

54 omplete ophthalmologic examination including standard automated perimetry, retinal nerve fiber layer

55 Each visit consisted of testing with standard automated perimetry (SAP) 24-2 and 10-2, and sp

56 ely determine how the reliability indices in standard automated perimetry (SAP) affect the global ind

57 Subjects were longitudinally monitored with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and confocal scanning

58 Standard automated perimetry (SAP) and eye tracking peri

59 nd intertest variability components for both standard automated perimetry (SAP) and frequency-doublin

60 Patients were monitored with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and had longitudinal

61 (GAT; 45, 95% CrI 17-68), whereas threshold standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Heidelberg Retina

62 nd time to detect glaucoma progression using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and optical coherence

63 All subjects had standard automated perimetry (SAP) and optical coherence

64 tural damage, as assessed by parameters from standard automated perimetry (SAP) and spectral-domain O

65 All eyes underwent testing with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and spectral-domain o

66 Patients were tested with standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals,

67 ionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) performed annually and standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals.

68 ionnaire (NEI VFQ)-25 performed annually and standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals.

69 Subjects underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP) at baseline and annua

70 All eyes had normal standard automated perimetry (SAP) at baseline.

71 ients had repeatable visual field defects on standard automated perimetry (SAP) at baseline.

72 Participants had normal standard automated perimetry (SAP) at baseline.

73 ent acquired at the baseline visit and 24-2C standard automated perimetry (SAP) every 4 months for up

74 were eligible, full threshold, pattern 24-2, standard automated perimetry (SAP) examinations (Humphre

75 analyses are undertaken using white on white standard automated perimetry (SAP) for comparison.

76 was shown to segment clusters of patterns in standard automated perimetry (SAP) for glaucoma in previ

77 Spearman correlations with standard automated perimetry (SAP) global indices were c

78 Detecting progression of VF damage with Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) is of paramount impor

79 00 at least at the last two clinic visits or standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD) <

80 slow progressors based on rates of change in standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD) a

81 Differences in standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD) a

82 ordinary least-squares linear regression of standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD) v

83 Rates of visual field loss were assessed by standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD).

84 covariates TSS; disease severity, defined as standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation [MD];

85 cal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (CSLO) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) measurements analyzed

86 cted to investigate the relationship between standard automated perimetry (SAP) measures of RGCs and

87 ified as glaucomatous by repeatable abnormal standard automated perimetry (SAP) or progressive glauco

88 An analysis of normative data for standard automated perimetry (SAP) sensitivities and opt

89 Standard automated perimetry (SAP) shows a marked increa

90 The cumbersome Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) test is most frequent

91 participants underwent at least one reliable standard automated perimetry (SAP) test, while RNFL meas

92 tical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging and standard automated perimetry (SAP) testing.

93 ptical coherence tomography (OCT) and 19,812 standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests from 6138 eyes

94 ptical coherence tomography (OCT) and 19,812 standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests from 6138 eyes

95 All patients had at least 2 reliable standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests, 2 spectral dom

96 oherence tomography (OCT) RNFL thickness and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual field loss wer

97 These eyes had normal standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields at base

98 to learn a low-dimensional representation of standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields using 2

99 along with optic disc stereophotographs and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields.

100 along with optic disc stereophotographs and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields.

101 SVOP and standard automated perimetry (SAP) was performed with te

102 eripapillary NFL thicknesses were mapped and standard automated perimetry (SAP) was performed.

103 , high-pass resolution perimetry (HPRP), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) were performed.

104 r different rates of visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) when considering diff

105 ants underwent testing with a BCI device and standard automated perimetry (SAP) within 3 months.

106 ionship between visual function, measured by standard automated perimetry (SAP), and retinal nerve fi

107 of glaucoma diagnosis, glaucoma treatments, standard automated perimetry (SAP), and spectral domain

108 All eyes had standard automated perimetry (SAP), Cirrus SD-OCT, and s

109 All eyes underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP), GDxVCC, and GDxECC i

110 ltifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) and standard automated perimetry (SAP), in eyes with high-ri

111 All eyes underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP), spectral-domain opti

112 Standard automated perimetry (SAP), the most common form

113 The first can be observed by Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP), the second by Optic

114 repeatable (either two or three consecutive) standard automated perimetry (SAP)-detected abnormalitie

115 using a retina tomograph and white-on-white standard automated perimetry (SAP).

116 ve ophthalmic examination and abnormality on standard automated perimetry (SAP).

117 ined from early kinetic perimetry to current standard automated perimetry (SAP).

118 g, Germany), along with IOP measurements and standard automated perimetry (SAP).

119 unction Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), FDT, and standard automated perimetry (SAP).

120 ), to the loss in sensitivity, measured with standard automated perimetry (SAP).

121 Patients were examined every 4 months with standard automated perimetry (SAP, SITA Standard, 24-2 t

122 e tested on HRT II, StratusOCT, GDx VCC, and standard automated perimetry (SAP, with the Swedish Inte

123 esults in a Glaucoma Hemifield Test [GHT] on standard automated perimetry [SAP] 24-2 fields) and RNFL

124 the Guided Progression Analysis software for standard automated perimetry [SAP] and by masked assessm

125 rmalities (GS: mean age 56.6 +/- 13.8 years, standard automated perimetry [SAP] mean deviation [MD] -

126 eviation (MD) measured with perimetry tests (standard automated perimetry [SAP], short-wavelength aut

127 retest variability of four perimetry tests: standard automated perimetry size III (SAP III), with th

128 cipate in a prospective evaluation including standard automated perimetry, spectral-domain optical co

129 pecific perimetry may be influenced by which standard automated perimetry technique is used as the re

130 pillary responses were evaluated relative to standard automated perimetry testing (Humphrey Visual Fi

131 coherence tomography (OCT) of the RNFL, and standard automated perimetry testing at 6-month interval

132 Adding home-monitoring data to 2 standard automated perimetry tests made 6 months apart r

133 Standard automated perimetry tests were deemed reliable

134 Age-adjusted standard automated perimetry thresholds, along with othe

135 up for an average of 4.5 +/- 0.8 years with standard automated perimetry visual fields and optical c

136 y were consecutively recruited and underwent standard automated perimetry, visual acuity measurement,

137 Subjects were followed prospectively with standard automated perimetry, visual acuity measurements

138 At each visit, standard automated perimetry was conducted on each eye,

139 Standard automated perimetry was done using the 24-2 Swe

140 n-EDI) and EDI modes, ultrasound B-scan, and standard automated perimetry were performed on both eyes

141 and visual field tests were collected using standard automated perimetry with 24-2 Swedish Interacti