Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:1577286rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0025663lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1577286lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0042826lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1577286lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0011570lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1577286lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205246lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1577286lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:dateCreated1992-6-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:abstractTextThe separation of local and diffuse visual field loss is important for evaluating the nature and extent of glaucomatous visual field damage. Here, five automated methods for estimating diffuse loss in glaucomatous visual fields (as measured with the Octopus G1 program) are compared. Four are taken from the published literature, and one is introduced in this investigation. It is shown that the new index (here called diffuse loss) provides the best agreement with a value determined using a more empirical approach.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:issn0721-832Xlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FankhauserFFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FlammerJJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HirsbrunnerH...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FunkhouserAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:volume230lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:pagination101-6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:dateRevised2010-11-18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:1577286-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:year1992lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:articleTitleA comparison of five methods for estimating general glaucomatous visual field depression.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:affiliationUniversity Eye Clinic, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:1577286pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed