These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1454362)

  • 1. Clinical contrast sensitivity chart evaluation.
    Elliott DB; Whitaker D
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1992 Jul; 12(3):275-80. PubMed ID: 1454362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The SKILL Card. An acuity test of reduced luminance and contrast. Smith-Kettlewell Institute Low Luminance.
    Haegerstrom-Portnoy G; Brabyn J; Schneck ME; Jampolsky A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Jan; 38(1):207-18. PubMed ID: 9008645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of clinical acuity and contrast sensitivity charts: effect of uncorrected myopia.
    Bradley A; Hook J; Haeseker J
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1991 Jul; 11(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 1766685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test in Zaire.
    Kaimbo Wa Kaimbo D; Spileers W; Missotten L
    Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol; 1996; 263():87-90. PubMed ID: 9396193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts.
    Thayaparan K; Crossland MD; Rubin GS
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2007 Jun; 91(6):749-52. PubMed ID: 17166891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reading performance in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a study using the MNREAD charts.
    Virgili G; Pierrottet C; Parmeggiani F; Pennino M; Giacomelli G; Steindler P; Menchini U; Orzalesi N;
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Oct; 45(10):3418-24. PubMed ID: 15452044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of neodymium: YAG capsulotomy on contrast sensitivity and the evaluation of methods for its assessment.
    Tan JC; Spalton DJ; Arden GB
    Ophthalmology; 1999 Apr; 106(4):703-9. PubMed ID: 10201590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design.
    Haymes SA; Roberts KF; Cruess AF; Nicolela MT; LeBlanc RP; Ramsey MS; Chauhan BC; Artes PH
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Jun; 47(6):2739-45. PubMed ID: 16723494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The validity of current clinical tests of contrast sensitivity and their ability to predict reading speed in low vision.
    Leat SJ; Woo GC
    Eye (Lond); 1997; 11 ( Pt 6)():893-9. PubMed ID: 9537154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses.
    Rajagopalan AS; Bennett ES; Lakshminarayanan V
    Optom Vis Sci; 2006 Aug; 83(8):611-5. PubMed ID: 16909087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Contrast sensitivity--an unnoticed factor of visual perception in children with developmental delay: normal data of the Cambridge Low Contrast Gratings test in children.
    Nielsen LS; Nielsen SK; Skov L; Jensen H
    J Child Neurol; 2007 Feb; 22(2):151-5. PubMed ID: 17621475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of the VCTS-6500 and the CSV-1000 tests for visual contrast sensitivity testing.
    Franco S; Silva AC; Carvalho AS; Macedo AS; Lira M
    Neurotoxicology; 2010 Dec; 31(6):758-61. PubMed ID: 20600292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Repeatability of the Waterloo Four-Contrast LogMAR Visual Acuity chart and Near Vision Test card on a group of normal young adults.
    Cho P; Woo GC
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2004 Sep; 24(5):427-35. PubMed ID: 15315657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans. The SEE Study. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project.
    Rubin GS; West SK; Muñoz B; Bandeen-Roche K; Zeger S; Schein O; Fried LP
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Mar; 38(3):557-68. PubMed ID: 9071208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Interocular differences in visual function in normal subjects.
    Wood JM; Bullimore MA
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1996 Nov; 16(6):507-12. PubMed ID: 8944198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Visual contrast sensitivity testing: a comparison of two F.A.C.T. test types.
    Hitchcock EM; Dick RB; Krieg EF
    Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2004; 26(2):271-7. PubMed ID: 15019960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart.
    Elliott DB; Sanderson K; Conkey A
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1990 Jan; 10(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 2330208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of different forms of monocular occlusion on measures of central visual function.
    Wildsoet C; Wood J; Maag H; Sabdia S
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1998 May; 18(3):263-8. PubMed ID: 9829113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test.
    Arditi A
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2005 Jun; 46(6):2225-9. PubMed ID: 15914645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Early clinical evaluation of visual function in patients with age-related cataract].
    Fu J; Wang J; Wang NL; Kang HJ
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2006 Mar; 42(3):236-40. PubMed ID: 16643756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.