Showing results (1-10 of 8) with videos related to
Sort By:
Pageof 1
Archives of Ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960)|May 12, 2010
The effective dynamic ranges of standard automated perimetry sizes III and V and motion and matrix perimetryMichael Wall, Kimberly R Woodward, Carrie K Doyle, et al.Optometry and Vision Science : Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry|February 22, 2011
Variability of rarebit and standard perimetry sizes I and III in normalsJesse M Vislisel, Carrie K Doyle, Chris A Johnson, et al.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science|October 28, 2008
Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetryMichael Wall, Kimberly R Woodward, Carrie K Doyle, et al.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science|May 2, 2013
Size threshold perimetry performs as well as conventional automated perimetry with stimulus sizes III, V, and VI for glaucomatous lossMichael Wall, Carrie K Doyle, Trina Eden, et al.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science|January 24, 2013
The repeatability of mean defect with size III and size V standard automated perimetryMichael Wall, Carrie K Doyle, K D Zamba, et al.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science|August 3, 2013
Refinement of pointwise linear regression criteria for determining glaucoma progressionColleen M Kummet, K D Zamba, Carrie K Doyle, et al.Journal of Glaucoma|December 19, 2008
A comparison of catch trial methods used in standard automated perimetry in glaucoma patientsMichael Wall, Carrie K Doyle, Caridad F Brito, et al.Archives of Ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill. : 1960)|April 17, 2008
Total deviation probability plots for stimulus size v perimetry: a comparison with size III stimuliMichael Wall, Caridad F Brito, Kimberly R Woodward, et al.Pageof 1