ライフサイエンスコーパス: perimetry

1 lated ophthalmoscopy, and standard automated perimetry.

2 ypertension and performed standard automated perimetry.

3 ral static programme with Humphrey automated perimetry.

4 tial functional visual improvement on static perimetry.

5 lts of an optotype acuity test and automated perimetry.

6 e to a screening protocol for SKP on Octopus perimetry.

7 to summarize results from standard automated perimetry.

8 fields were obtained with standard automated perimetry.

9 nd visual loss was quantified using Goldmann perimetry.

10 blind spot location (NBSL) and its impact on perimetry.

11 had clinical examinations, and rod and cone perimetry.

12 al scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (CSLO), and perimetry.

13 mean deviation (MD) from standard automated perimetry.

14 eld electroretinogram, and static or kinetic perimetry.

15 posed individuals underwent Goldmann kinetic perimetry.

16 xagon global-flash mfERG (MFOFO), and static perimetry.

17 d index (VFI) values from standard automated perimetry.

18 al field index (VFI) from standard automated perimetry.

19 evident using dark-adapted static threshold perimetry.

20 82 years) were studied with static chromatic perimetry.

21 ermined by dark- and light-adapted chromatic perimetry.

22 according to results of 2-color dark-adapted perimetry.

23 eshold strategy; Matrix (FDT II), and Motion perimetry.

24 Visual fields were evaluated by Goldmann perimetry.

25 sting standard technique--standard automated perimetry.

26 tics of new strategies/programs of selective perimetry.

27 agnosed using ophthalmoscopy, tonometry, and perimetry.

28 efects were assessed using behavioral static perimetry.

29 0% of glaucoma suspects with normal standard perimetry.

30 mean deviation (MD) from standard automated perimetry.

31 anterior temporal lobectomies using Goldmann perimetry.

32 andardized clinical assessment and automated perimetry.

33 inical test protocols for kinetic and static perimetry.

34 carrying out Full Threshold automated static perimetry.

35 found with white-on-white or blue-on-yellow perimetry.

36 ymetry, optic disc evaluation, and automated perimetry.

37 nge in detection accuracy in high-resolution perimetry.

38 abnormal visual fields on standard automated perimetry.

39 e tomography (SD-OCT) and standard automated perimetry.

40 y for reliable testing by standard automated perimetry.

41 isolated parameters from standard automated perimetry (8.5%) or optical coherence tomography (14.6%;

42 e sensitive measurement for early stages and perimetry a better measure for moderate to advanced stag

43 combination with scotopic fundus-controlled perimetry allows for a more refined structure-function c

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

45 ntribute to further linkage between clinical perimetry and basic vision science.

46 ly published variability characteristics for perimetry and confirmed their appropriateness for a home

47 at 4-month intervals with standard automated perimetry and confocal scanning laser tomography.

48 Function was assessed with perimetry and electroretinography (ERG) and retinal stru

49 sessment using frequency doubling technology perimetry and equivalent noise motion sensitivity testin

50 Short-wavelength automated perimetry and frequency doubling technology may be more

51 cuity (BCVA), Goldmann kinetic and automated perimetry and fundus-guided microperimetry, full-field a

52 (22 subjects) underwent achromatic automated perimetry and mfVEP and cVEP testing.

53 e cone dysfunction detected on light-adapted perimetry and multifocal ERG but with near-normal rod-me

54 Subjects underwent standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography (Cirrus HD-OC

55 clinicians, were tested every 6 months with perimetry and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

56 hthalmological examination, static automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography of the macula

57 counts were obtained from standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography, and a weight

58 Each subject was experienced in automated perimetry and performed multiple, monocular baseline SIT

59 worse mean deviation (P = .02) on automated perimetry and possibly with worse pattern standard devia

60 ions were performed using standard automated perimetry and rates of change were calculated by linear

61 d underwent VF testing with static automated perimetry and RNFL examination with optical coherence to

62 owed for coregistration of fundus-controlled perimetry and spectral-domain optical coherence tomograp

63 en intersession test repeatability in static perimetry and the degree of local sensitivity reduction

64 ul for adults and children unable to perform perimetry and when the perimetric outcome is equivocal.

65 mic examination, multimodal retinal imaging, perimetry, and electrophysiology.

66 sured by kinetic perimetry, static chromatic perimetry, and electroretinography (ERG).

67 -corrected visual acuity, kinetic and static perimetry, and full-field electroretinography.

68 ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography, Goldmann perimetry, and full-field standard electroretinogram (ER

69 from questionnaires, examinations, automated perimetry, and fundus photography grading.

70 by diagnostic odds ratio, FDT, oculokinetic perimetry, and HRT II are promising tests.

71 zed order using Goldmann and Octopus kinetic perimetry, and Humphrey static perimetry (Swedish Intera

72 ull clinical examination, standard automated perimetry, and imaging with time-domain and Fourier-doma

73 r media opacity), abnormalities on automated perimetry, and loss of retinal nerve fiber layer, even a

74 -adapted achromatic and 2-color dark-adapted perimetry, and microperimetry.

75 angiography (ICGA), preferential hyperacuity perimetry, and microperimetry.

76 ent routine examination, including automated perimetry, and OCT with segmentation of the perifoveal r

77 tography, fundus autofluorescence, automated perimetry, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the

78 t visit) were studied by ocular examination, perimetry, and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

79 80fs) USH1C mutations were studied with ERG, perimetry, and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

80 testing (FST), kinetic and static threshold perimetry, and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

81 refraction, fundus photography, visual field perimetry, and optical coherence tomography imaging of m

82 on, including gonioscopy, standard automated perimetry, and stereoscopic optic disc photography.

83 Short-wavelength automated perimetry appears to be a useful and complementary modal

84 d to correlate these measures with automated perimetry are explored.

85 was trained to localize visual targets in a perimetry array.

86 dard deviation on short-wavelength automated perimetry as patients achieved remission.

87 and 30 degrees blue-on-yellow near-threshold perimetry, as well as reaction time, eye movements, and

88 64 patients (113 eyes) underwent dual perimetry assessment.

89 Patients were examined with static automated perimetry at 6-month intervals for a median follow-up of

90 Study participants underwent automated perimetry at baseline (median interval, 2 months after i

91 nts had visual fields assessed with Goldmann perimetry at least three months after surgery.

92 oretinography, kinetic, and chromatic static perimetry, autofluorescence (AF) imaging, and optical co

93 with best-corrected visual acuity, Goldmann perimetry, automated perimetry (Humphrey Field Analyzer)

94 nal nerve fiber layer may be superior to FDT perimetry, but the techniques remain unproven in screeni

95 Reliable automated perimetry can be accomplished in most patients with TBI

96 isk groups with functional testing using FDT perimetry can be effective, but newer automated structur

97 Recordings of eye movements during perimetry can be used to generate an improved estimate o

98 ual field defects when standard conventional perimetry cannot be performed in young or neurologically

99 s were also tested on conventional automated perimetry (CAP), with the 24-2 pattern with the SITA Sta

100 best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), static perimetry central 30 degrees visual field hill of vision

101 Static automated perimetry (central 30-2 threshold program with spot size

102 ons were studied clinically and with kinetic perimetry, chromatic static perimetry, electroretinograp

103 ar examination, kinetic and chromatic static perimetry, dark adaptometry, and optical coherence tomog

104 E) methods to model longitudinally collected perimetry data and determines whether NLME methods provi

105 lion cells in humans, based on the normative perimetry data for age-related reductions in visual sens

106 SVMg)-were trained separately using standard perimetry data from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glauco

107 Variability of Matrix and Motion perimetry does not increase as substantially as that of

108 and with kinetic perimetry, chromatic static perimetry, electroretinography (ERG), and optical cohere

109 Selective perimetry evaluates visual function by using visual stim

110 coherence tomography and standard automated perimetry every 6 months.

111 Contrast sensitivity, frequency doubling perimetry (FDP), Humphrey visual fields, photostress rec

112 ne in functional factors (frequency doubling perimetry [FDP], Humphrey photopic Swedish Interactive T

113 e follow-up examinations: frequency doubling perimetry (FDT), 24-2 Humphrey visual fields (HVF), mult

114 imetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT), high-pass resolution perimetry (HPRP),

115 th assessment, frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDT, C-20-5), confocal scanning laser ophthal

116 In selected patients, Goldmann perimetry, fluorescein angiography, full-field electrore

117 and enlarged blind spots that require formal perimetry for detection.

118 The validity of clinical perimetry for evaluation of the pathology of glaucoma is

119 In the area of perimetry, frequency-doubling technology is a promising

120 examination, and thus follow-up with OCT or perimetry from an established baseline is useful.

121 function was assessed with automated static perimetry, full-field and multifocal electroretinography

122 unctional testing included kinetic widefield perimetry, full-field electroretinogram (ffERG), and vis

123 ted visual acuity (BCVA), kinetic and static perimetry, full-field electroretinography, and fundus au

124 died by ocular examination, retinal imaging, perimetry, full-field sensitivity testing, and pupillome

125 -corrected visual acuity, kinetic and static perimetry, fundus-guided microperimetry, full-field elec

126 ted visual acuity (BCVA), kinetic and static perimetry, fundus-guided microperimetry, full-field elec

127 Correlations of FDT to standard perimetry global indices were similar regardless of the

128 ing Full-Threshold as the standard automated perimetry gold-standard strategy, and comparisons of the

129 tograph assessment and/or standard automated perimetry guided progression analysis, [GPA]) and 21 hea

130 g tests, frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry has shown higher sensitivity and specificity.

131 ise sensitivity data from standard automated perimetry; however, frequency-of seeing and test-retest

132 nology perimetry (FDT), high-pass resolution perimetry (HPRP), and standard automated perimetry (SAP)

133 visual acuity, Goldmann perimetry, automated perimetry (Humphrey Field Analyzer), and contrast sensit

134 ated functional visual improvement on static perimetry in 2 patients.

135 results with those of standard conventional perimetry in children who underwent both.

136 eal sensitivity of matrix frequency-doubling perimetry in each treatment group.

137 t our perception about the role of selective perimetry in glaucoma management.

138 l field defects not yet present on automated perimetry in patients with glaucomatous and nonglaucomat

139 lative scotoma noted on light-adapted static perimetry in the left eye.

140 Standard automated perimetry is being adapted and improved constantly.

141 Automated perimetry is now quicker to perform and is accepted as t

142 Standard automated perimetry is the current criterion standard for assessme

143 tudy shows that, although Standard Automatic Perimetry is the gold standard to evaluate glaucomatous

144 Perimetry is used clinically to assess glaucomatous gang

145 Selective perimetry is usually compared against an existing standa

146 not designed to replace standardised visual perimetry; it does, however, offer a quick and easy asse

147 ulation-based screening for eye disease, FDT perimetry lacks both sensitivity and specificity as a me

148 For fundus-controlled perimetry, locus-by-locus differences in sensitivity wer

149 ss may predict subsequent standard automated perimetry loss.

150 of spared-V1 cortex not provided by standard perimetry mapping.

151 st detectable visual field loss on automated perimetry may already show substantial loss of RGCs.

152 diagnostic performance of function-specific perimetry may be influenced by which standard automated

153 The mean automated perimetry MD score remained similar to baseline througho

154 ate to advanced glaucoma (standard automated perimetry mean deviation </=-8 dB) was used to estimate

155 g (HVF), frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry, measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) and

156 The 3 clinical measurements and the perimetry measurements were performed twice, separated b

157 the macula in STGD1 using fundus-controlled perimetry (microperimetry).

158 tients underwent detailed static and kinetic perimetry, microperimetry, optical coherence tomography,

159 e "sensitivity" range for different types of perimetry might incorporate a component caused by indivi

160 ed by ocular examination, kinetic and static perimetry, near-infrared autofluorescence, and optical c

161 Threshold perimetry, OCT, and SLP were used to prospectively study

162 patients with ocular hypertension underwent perimetry (Octopus G1; Haag-Streit, Koniz, Switzerland)

163 d perimetry of the whole field and threshold perimetry of the central field (Humphrey Field Analyzer

164 ent three-zone, age-corrected suprathreshold perimetry of the whole field and threshold perimetry of

165 re examined annually with standard automated perimetry, optic disc stereophotographs, and scanning la

166 nical examination, nerve conduction studies, perimetry, optical coherence tomography (OCT) measures o

167 formed, including electroretinography (ERG), perimetry, optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus au

168 oretinography (ERG), multifocal ERG (mfERG), perimetry, optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus au

169 nifest glaucoma, as confirmed with automated perimetry or a clinician's optic nerve head (ONH) assess

170 ant changes in frequency doubling technology perimetry or in motion detection parameters following tr

171 ns between these measures and either MD from perimetry or RNFL thickness from SD-OCT were compared us

172 ciated with reduced visual field by Goldmann perimetry (P = .003) and worse mean deviation (P = .02)

173 detection accuracy gains in high-resolution perimetry (P = .007), which were not found with white-on

174 attern standard deviation (PSD) on automated perimetry (P = .06).

175 perimetry tests (P = .02 for high-resolution perimetry, P = .04 for white on white, and P = .04 for b

176 Subjects underwent perimetry, papilledema grading (Frisen method), high- an

177 gnificantly correlated to standard automated perimetry pattern deviations.

178 Read-Right perimetry performed well on all measures.

179 In the absence of kinetic perimetry, peripheral static suprathreshold programme op

180 msler grid testing, preferential hyperacuity perimetry (PHP) testing, stereoscopic digital fundus pho

181 msler grid testing, preferential hyperacuity perimetry (PHP), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and

182 ucoma damage seen in retinal photographs and perimetry; prevalence of undiagnosed glaucoma; and compa

183 24-2) and Humphrey Matrix frequency-doubling perimetry, program 24-2 (Matrix) on the same day.

184 s to judge the quality of standard automated perimetry results are fixation losses (FLs) and false-po

185 studies did not consider standard automated perimetry results as part of inclusion/exclusion criteri

186 cular BEFIE tests with standard conventional perimetry results in 147 eyes yielded a positive predict

187 nine eyes with repeatable standard automated perimetry results showing glaucomatous damage and 62 nor

188 read correlated modestly with the acuity and perimetry results.

189 gic examination including standard automated perimetry, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness me

190 he reliability indices in standard automated perimetry (SAP) affect the global indices of visual fiel

191 itudinally monitored with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and confocal scanning laser ophthalmosco

192 ients were monitored with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and had longitudinal assessment of cogni

193 17-68), whereas threshold standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT II

194 All subjects had standard automated perimetry (SAP) and optical coherence tomography was use

195 es underwent testing with standard automated perimetry (SAP) and spectral-domain optical coherence to

196 Patients were tested with standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals, and evaluation of

197 5) performed annually and standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals.

198 25 performed annually and standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals.

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

200 e visual field defects on standard automated perimetry (SAP) at baseline.

201 threshold, pattern 24-2, standard automated perimetry (SAP) examinations (Humphrey Field Analyzer II

202 t clusters of patterns in standard automated perimetry (SAP) for glaucoma in previous publications.

203 ease severity, defined as standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation [MD]; and age in years on

204 ophthalmoscope (CSLO) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) measurements analyzed with relevance vec

205 the relationship between standard automated perimetry (SAP) measures of RGCs and optical coherence t

206 us by repeatable abnormal standard automated perimetry (SAP) or progressive glaucomatous changes on s

207 sis of normative data for standard automated perimetry (SAP) sensitivities and optical coherence tomo

208 Standard automated perimetry (SAP) shows a marked increase in variability i

209 ent at least one reliable standard automated perimetry (SAP) test, while RNFL measurements were obtai

210 (OCT) RNFL thickness and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual field loss were measured in the a

211 These eyes had normal standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields at baseline and developed

212 isc stereophotographs and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields.

213 isc stereophotographs and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields.

214 icknesses were mapped and standard automated perimetry (SAP) was performed.

215 ion perimetry (HPRP), and standard automated perimetry (SAP) were performed.

216 f visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) when considering different frequencies o

217 ing with a BCI device and standard automated perimetry (SAP) within 3 months.

218 ual function, measured by standard automated perimetry (SAP), and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) th

219 All eyes had standard automated perimetry (SAP), Cirrus SD-OCT, and stereoscopic optic d

220 All eyes underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP), GDxVCC, and GDxECC imaging every 6 mont

221 ked potential (mfVEP) and standard automated perimetry (SAP), in eyes with high-risk ocular hypertens

222 Static automated perimetry (SAP), mfERGs, and mfVEPs were obtained from 1

223 AGES) were observed with standard achromatic perimetry (SAP), optic disc stereophotographs, confocal

224 All eyes underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP), spectral-domain optical coherence tomog

225 first can be observed by Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP), the second by Optic Coherence Tomograph

226 two or three consecutive) standard automated perimetry (SAP)-detected abnormalities over the course o

227 etic perimetry to current standard automated perimetry (SAP).

228 ensitivity, measured with standard automated perimetry (SAP).

229 ual fields as measured with static automated perimetry (SAP).

230 ograph and white-on-white standard automated perimetry (SAP).

231 with IOP measurements and standard automated perimetry (SAP).

232 re (NEI VFQ-25), FDT, and standard automated perimetry (SAP).

233 mined every 4 months with standard automated perimetry (SAP, SITA Standard, 24-2 test, Humphrey Field

234 StratusOCT, GDx VCC, and standard automated perimetry (SAP, with the Swedish Interactive Thresholdin

235 a Hemifield Test [GHT] on standard automated perimetry [SAP] 24-2 fields) and RNFL thickness measurem

236 ion Analysis software for standard automated perimetry [SAP] and by masked assessment of serial optic

237 age 56.6 +/- 13.8 years, standard automated perimetry [SAP] mean deviation [MD] -0.58 +/- 1.34 dB) a

238 nderwent visual field testing, including FDT perimetry screening, and had fundus photographs taken.

239 All patients had standard perimetry (SITA and FT) and FDT within 3 months of each

240 of four perimetry tests: standard automated perimetry size III (SAP III), with the SITA standard str

241 opters obtained using semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) and Vigabatrin dosage in epilepsy patien

242 To compare semikinetic perimetry (SKP) on Octopus 900 perimetry to a peripheral

243 d eye examinations, including visual acuity, perimetry, slit-lamp examination, intraocular pressure,

244 We prospectively performed automated perimetry, SLP, and high definition OCT (HD-OCT) of the

245 es underwent complete examination, automated perimetry, SLP-ECC, SLP-VCC, and OCT.

246 By perimetry, small central visual islands were separated b

247 tive evaluation including standard automated perimetry, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography

248 nt included visual acuity, fundus-controlled perimetry, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography,

249 Visual function was measured by kinetic perimetry, static chromatic perimetry, and electroretino

250 ickness, intraocular pressure, Humphrey 24-2 perimetry, stereoscopic optic nerve head (ONH) and retin

251 , and VI (3.44 degrees ), and size threshold perimetry (STP), a method that finds threshold by changi

252 ially when combined with conventional static perimetry strategies.

253 Short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology perimetr

254 lues were recorded from the static automated perimetry (Swedish interactive threshold algorithm stand

255 topus kinetic perimetry, and Humphrey static perimetry (Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm [S

256 ay be influenced by which standard automated perimetry technique is used as the reference.

257 Using a novel automated perimetry technique, we tested the hypothesis that older

258 ues were significantly faster than the RU or perimetry techniques and were considered easiest to lear

259 bias and permitting fair comparisons between perimetry techniques.

260 Humphrey perimetry test duration was generally longer than Octopu

261 ere evaluated relative to standard automated perimetry testing (Humphrey Visual Field [HVF]; Carl Zei

262 hy (OCT) of the RNFL, and standard automated perimetry testing at 6-month intervals.

263 ma were greater compared with placebo in all perimetry tests (P = .02 for high-resolution perimetry,

264 investigating the retest variability of four perimetry tests: standard automated perimetry size III (

265 For dark-adapted perimetry, the coefficients of repeatability (CR(.95)) w

266 Standard perimetry thresholds for 52 locations plus age from one

267 Age-adjusted standard automated perimetry thresholds, along with other clinical variable

268 e semikinetic perimetry (SKP) on Octopus 900 perimetry to a peripheral static programme with Humphrey

269 l field have been refined from early kinetic perimetry to current standard automated perimetry (SAP).

270 Sensitivity and specificity of FDT perimetry to detect glaucoma, macular disease, or decrea

271 sual sensitivity was measured with automated perimetry to enable comparisons of function and structur

272 ning laser ophthalmoscopy, or scanning laser perimetry, to measure structure quantitatively in vivo a

273 liable neurologic field defects on automated perimetry using HFA.

274 as also studied with dark-adapted projection perimetry using monochromatic blue and red stimuli along

275 by comparing it with Humphrey 10-2 and 24-2 perimetry using the following measures: (1) sensitivity

276 al acuity (VA) and Humphrey automated static perimetry visual field (VF) defects of the affected eye

277 visual field hill of vision (VTOT), kinetic perimetry visual field area, and responses to a quality-

278 of 4.5 +/- 0.8 years with standard automated perimetry visual fields and optical coherence tomography

279 y recruited and underwent standard automated perimetry, visual acuity measurement, and fundus photogr

280 (SD) change in retinal sensitivity on static perimetry was -1.4 (3.7) (95% CI, -2.7 to -0.1) dB OD an

281 iPad suprathreshold perimetry was able to detect most visual field deficits

282 At each visit, standard automated perimetry was conducted on each eye, and IOP was measure

283 Standard automated perimetry was done using the 24-2 Swedish Interactive Th

284 In patients, perimetry was performed and peripapillary retinal nerve

285 ereoscopic fundus examination, and automated perimetry was performed at both baseline and at the 6-ye

286 Frequency doubling technology perimetry was performed in both eyes.

287 Scotopic and mesopic fundus-controlled perimetry was performed in patients.

288 l Coherence Tomography (SD-OCT) and standard perimetry was performed using the Humphrey automated fie

289 Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry was used to assess for visual field (VF) defec

290 ale characterized the visual field tested in perimetry well and can contribute to further linkage bet

291 esponding data for SAP V, Matrix, and Motion perimetry were 12%, 2%, and 2%, respectively.

292 isual field defects at standard conventional perimetry were accounted for.

293 y using two threshold algorithms of standard perimetry were compared with FDT.

294 ing increases with SAP V, Matrix, and Motion perimetry were considerably smaller or absent.

295 s, ultrasound B-scan, and standard automated perimetry were performed on both eyes of all participant

296 RG), electro-oculography (EOG), and Goldmann perimetry were performed.

297 Interactive Thresholding Algorithm standard perimetry when indicated.

298 By using perimetry with an analysis tailored for monitoring diabe

299 t of patients (n = 24) with automated static perimetry within the central regions (+/-15 degrees ) ex

300 of the threshold strategy used for standard perimetry, yielding r2= 0.38-0.57 for SAP-FT with FDT, 0