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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15181355)

  • 1. Reliability and validity of the Melbourne Edge Test and High/Low Contrast Visual Acuity chart.
    Haymes SA; Chen J
    Optom Vis Sci; 2004 May; 81(5):308-16. PubMed ID: 15181355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Test-retest Repeatability of the Ohio Contrast Cards.
    Osman M; Njeru SM; Hopkins GR; Brown AM
    Optom Vis Sci; 2021 Sep; 98(9):1070-1077. PubMed ID: 34570031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli-Robson test?
    Zeri F; Calcatelli P; Funaro E; Martelli M; Naroo SA
    Int Ophthalmol; 2018 Aug; 38(4):1473-1484. PubMed ID: 28639086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired.
    Wolffsohn JS; Eperjesi F; Napper G
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2005 Jul; 25(4):371-4. PubMed ID: 15953123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An evaluation of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test.
    Dougherty BE; Flom RE; Bullimore MA
    Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Nov; 82(11):970-5. PubMed ID: 16317373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Ohio Contrast Cards: Visual Performance in a Pediatric Low-vision Site.
    Hopkins GR; Dougherty BE; Brown AM
    Optom Vis Sci; 2017 Oct; 94(10):946-956. PubMed ID: 28972542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Test-retest variability and correlations between tests of texture processing, motion processing, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity.
    Simpson TL; Regan D
    Optom Vis Sci; 1995 Jan; 72(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 7731649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessment of contrast sensitivity by Spaeth Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test and Pelli Robson Chart Test in patients with varying severity of glaucoma.
    Thakur S; Ichhpujani P; Kumar S; Kaur R; Sood S
    Eye (Lond); 2018 Aug; 32(8):1392-1400. PubMed ID: 29755121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity.
    Kollbaum PS; Jansen ME; Kollbaum EJ; Bullimore MA
    Optom Vis Sci; 2014 Mar; 91(3):291-6. PubMed ID: 24413274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Contrast reduction and reading: assessment and reliability with the Reading Explorer test.
    Giacomelli G; Volpe R; Virgili G; Farini A; Arrighi R; Tarli-Barbieri C; Mencucci R; Menchini U
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2010; 20(2):389-96. PubMed ID: 19882511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of Light Scatter and Blur on Low-Contrast Vision and Disk Halo Size.
    Puell MC; Palomo-Álvarez C
    Optom Vis Sci; 2017 Apr; 94(4):505-510. PubMed ID: 28234795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Short-term visual performance of soft multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia.
    Sha J; Bakaraju RC; Tilia D; Chung J; Delaney S; Munro A; Ehrmann K; Thomas V; Holden BA
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2016 Apr; 79(2):73-7. PubMed ID: 27224066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Inefficacy of aspheric soft contact lenses for the correction of low levels of astigmatism.
    Morgan PB; Efron SE; Efron N; Hill EA
    Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Sep; 82(9):823-8. PubMed ID: 16189492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Agreement analysis comparing iPad LCVA and Sloan testing in multiple sclerosis patients.
    Sattarnezhad N; Farrow S; Kimbrough D; Glanz B; Healy B; Chitnis T
    Mult Scler; 2018 Jul; 24(8):1126-1130. PubMed ID: 28585909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reliability of a standardized reading chart system: variance component analysis, test-retest and inter-chart reliability.
    Stifter E; König F; Lang T; Bauer P; Richter-Müksch S; Velikay-Parel M; Radner W
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2004 Jan; 242(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 14666372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Predicting individual contrast sensitivity functions from acuity and letter contrast sensitivity measurements.
    Thurman SM; Davey PG; McCray KL; Paronian V; Seitz AR
    J Vis; 2016 Dec; 16(15):15. PubMed ID: 28006065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of wavefront aberration and corneal subepithelial haze on low-contrast visual acuity after photorefractive keratectomy.
    Tanabe T; Miyata K; Samejima T; Hirohara Y; Mihashi T; Oshika T
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Oct; 138(4):620-4. PubMed ID: 15488790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.