ライフサイエンスコーパス: perimetry

1 inical test protocols for kinetic and static perimetry.

2 carrying out Full Threshold automated static perimetry.

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

4 ymetry, optic disc evaluation, and automated perimetry.

5 nge in detection accuracy in high-resolution perimetry.

6 abnormal visual fields on standard automated perimetry.

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

8 y for reliable testing by standard automated perimetry.

9 ypertension and performed standard automated perimetry.

10 ral static programme with Humphrey automated perimetry.

11 tial functional visual improvement on static perimetry.

12 lts of an optotype acuity test and automated perimetry.

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

14 fields were obtained with standard automated perimetry.

15 nd visual loss was quantified using Goldmann perimetry.

16 had clinical examinations, and rod and cone perimetry.

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

18 mean deviation (MD) from standard automated perimetry.

19 eld electroretinogram, and static or kinetic perimetry.

20 posed individuals underwent Goldmann kinetic perimetry.

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

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

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

24 evident using dark-adapted static threshold perimetry.

25 82 years) were studied with static chromatic perimetry.

26 l visual field defects on standard automated perimetry.

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

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

29 Visual fields were evaluated by Goldmann perimetry.

30 sting standard technique--standard automated perimetry.

31 optic disc examination, and static automated perimetry.

32 lated ophthalmoscopy, and standard automated perimetry.

33 to summarize results from standard automated perimetry.

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

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

36 agnosed using ophthalmoscopy, tonometry, and perimetry.

37 kely easily detectable by standard automated perimetry.

38 andardized clinical assessment and automated perimetry.

39 performed in clinic using standard automated perimetry (4 tests total, per eye).

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

41 office visits (mean 9.3 vs 7.3; P < .0001), perimetry (85.3% vs 79.8%; P < .0001), cataract surgery

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

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

44 (VFs) were measured using standard automated perimetry and arranged in series (median length and dura

45 Mean deviation on standard achromatic perimetry and average thickness on peripapillary RNFL OC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63 SPEs) as a source of low test reliability in perimetry and to develop a strategy to mitigate this err

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

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

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

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

68 ctroretinography (ERG) and fundus-controlled perimetry, and genotype.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78 80fs) USH1C mutations were studied with ERG, perimetry, and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

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

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

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

82 ensitivity (SPARCS) test, standard automated perimetry, and visual acuity (VA).

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

90 Enrolled patients underwent perimetry at baseline and annual follow-up visits.

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 the integrated monocular standard automated perimetry based on point-by-point assessment with a mism

95 ntaneous improvements in luminance detection perimetry, but spontaneous recovery of motion discrimina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

107 Selective perimetry evaluates visual function by using visual stim

108 coherence tomography and standard automated perimetry every 6 months.

109 and dark-adapted two-color fundus-controlled perimetry (FCP, also called "microperimetry") constitute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133 Standard automated perimetry is being adapted and improved constantly.

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

135 Standard automated perimetry is the current criterion standard for assessme

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

137 Perimetry is used clinically to assess glaucomatous gang

138 Selective perimetry is usually compared against an existing standa

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

140 integration, as well as luminance detection perimetry, just as it does in chronic cortically-induced

141 try (SP) and between-eye symmetry of kinetic perimetry (KP) were evaluated with intraclass correlatio

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

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

144 ss may predict subsequent standard automated perimetry loss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

152 ies were assessed by using fundus-controlled perimetry ("microperimetry"); and retinal microstructure

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

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

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

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

157 eiss Meditech), macular integrity assessment perimetry, OCT, motion discrimination performance, and v

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

171 gnificantly correlated to standard automated perimetry pattern deviations.

172 Read-Right perimetry performed well on all measures.

173 n to corneal pachymetry, standard achromatic perimetry, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL

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

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

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

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

178 24-2) and Humphrey Matrix frequency-doubling perimetry, program 24-2 (Matrix) on the same day.

179 CVA and mean deviation of automated standard perimetry remained stable in all groups during follow-up

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

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

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

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

184 rved retinal thickness and fundus-controlled perimetry results, and with normal full-field ERG record

185 read correlated modestly with the acuity and perimetry results.

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

187 d automated perimetry (SAP) and eye tracking perimetry (saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry, SVOP)

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

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

190 Standard automated perimetry (SAP) and eye tracking perimetry (saccadic vec

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

192 17-68), whereas threshold standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT II

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

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

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

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

197 25 performed annually and standard automated perimetry (SAP) at 6-month intervals.

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

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

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

201 pearman correlations with standard automated perimetry (SAP) global indices were compared between the

202 Differences in standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD) and integrated binoc

203 ares linear regression of standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD) values over time.

204 eld loss were assessed by standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

212 mography (OCT) and 19,812 standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests from 6138 eyes of 3669 patients wi

213 s had at least 2 reliable standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests, 2 spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT) te

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

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

216 nsional representation of standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields using 29,161 fields from 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

227 Standard automated perimetry (SAP), the most common form of perimetry used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

238 ield indices derived from automated Humphrey perimetry (SITA 24-2) tests (Zeiss, Dublin, CA), using O

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

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

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

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

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

244 By perimetry, small central visual islands were separated b

245 Repeatability of full-field static perimetry (SP) and between-eye symmetry of kinetic perim

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

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

248 inations, tonometry, gonioscopy, pachymetry, perimetry, specular microscopy, and assessment of advers

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

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

251 ially when combined with conventional static perimetry strategies.

252 cking perimetry (saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry, SVOP) was performed.

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

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

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

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

257 bias and permitting fair comparisons between perimetry techniques.

258 Humphrey perimetry test duration was generally longer than Octopu

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

260 target vs fixation target plus simultaneous perimetry testing and provide information on the conduct

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

262 ting using the same target with simultaneous perimetry testing.

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

264 home-monitoring data to 2 standard automated perimetry tests made 6 months apart reduced measurement

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

266 advances in quantitative ocular imaging and perimetry, the transition among healthy, glaucoma suspec

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 ted perimetry (SAP), the most common form of perimetry used in clinical practice, is associated with

274 liable neurologic field defects on automated perimetry using HFA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

285 In patients, perimetry was performed and peripapillary retinal nerve

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

287 Frequency doubling technology perimetry was performed in both eyes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

295 ty (BCVA) and the mean deviation (MD) of the perimetry were measured at baseline and at regular follo

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

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

298 Interactive Thresholding Algorithm standard perimetry when indicated.

299 By using perimetry with an analysis tailored for monitoring diabe

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