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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17273683)

  • 1. [Comparative study of the biometric measurements made by immersion and contact techniques].
    Kronbauer AL; Kronbauer FL; Kronbauer CL
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2006; 69(6):875-80. PubMed ID: 17273683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Axial length measurements by contact and immersion techniques in pediatric eyes with cataract.
    Trivedi RH; Wilson ME
    Ophthalmology; 2011 Mar; 118(3):498-502. PubMed ID: 21035871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry].
    Hrebcová J; Vasků A
    Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2008 Jan; 64(1):16-8. PubMed ID: 18225494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contact versus immersion biometry of axial length before cataract surgery.
    Hennessy MP; Franzco ; Chan DG
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2003 Nov; 29(11):2195-8. PubMed ID: 14670431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry in terms of target postoperative refraction].
    Hrebcová J; Skorkovská S; Vasků A
    Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2009 Jul; 65(4):143-6. PubMed ID: 19750832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Accuracy of immersion B-scan ultrasound biometry in high myopic patients with cataract].
    Yang Q; Chen B; Peng G; Li Z; Huang Y
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Jan; 50(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 24709131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Immersion versus contact technique in the measurement of axial length by ultrasound.
    Olsen T; Nielsen PJ
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1989 Feb; 67(1):101-2. PubMed ID: 2672694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy of IOL calculations in children: a comparison of immersion versus contact A-scan biometery.
    Ben-Zion I; Neely DE; Plager DA; Ofner S; Sprunger DT; Roberts GJ
    J AAPOS; 2008 Oct; 12(5):440-4. PubMed ID: 18599330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Intraocular lens calculation and ultrasound biometry: immersion and contact procedures].
    Hoffmann PC; Hütz WW; Eckhardt HB; Heuring AH
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1998 Sep; 213(3):161-5. PubMed ID: 9793914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of ocular biometry measurements by applanation and immersion A-scan techniques.
    Ademola-Popoola DS; Nzeh DA; Saka SE; Olokoba LB; Obajolowo TS
    J Curr Ophthalmol; 2015; 27(3-4):110-4. PubMed ID: 27239588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of operator experience on the performance of ultrasound biometry compared to optical biometry before cataract surgery.
    Findl O; Kriechbaum K; Sacu S; Kiss B; Polak K; Nepp J; Schild G; Rainer G; Maca S; Petternel V; Lackner B; Drexler W
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2003 Oct; 29(10):1950-5. PubMed ID: 14604716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Comparison between Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometry and OcuScan RXP contact biometry for task delegation].
    El Chehab H; Giraud JM; Le Corre A; Chave N; Durand F; Kuter S; Ract-Madoux G; Swalduz B; Mourgues G; Dot C
    J Fr Ophtalmol; 2011 Mar; 34(3):175-80. PubMed ID: 21257228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis.
    Packer M; Fine IH; Hoffman RS; Coffman PG; Brown LK
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2002 Feb; 28(2):239-42. PubMed ID: 11821203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Refractive outcome of cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry and ultrasound biometry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype II.
    Kiss B; Findl O; Menapace R; Wirtitsch M; Petternel V; Drexler W; Rainer G; Georgopoulos M; Hitzenberger CK; Fercher AF
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2002 Feb; 28(2):230-4. PubMed ID: 11821201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations.
    Rajan MS; Keilhorn I; Bell JA
    Eye (Lond); 2002 Sep; 16(5):552-6. PubMed ID: 12194067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence interferometry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype I.
    Kiss B; Findl O; Menapace R; Wirtitsch M; Drexler W; Hitzenberger CK; Fercher AF
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2002 Feb; 28(2):224-9. PubMed ID: 11821200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of laser interferometry and ultrasound A-scan in the measurement of axial length.
    Goyal R; North RV; Morgan JE
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2003 Aug; 81(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 12859258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Contact or immersion technique for axial length measurement?
    Watson A; Armstrong R
    Aust N Z J Ophthalmol; 1999 Feb; 27(1):49-51. PubMed ID: 10080338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of contact and immersion techniques for axial length measurement and implant power calculation.
    Schelenz J; Kammann J
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1989 Jul; 15(4):425-8. PubMed ID: 2674412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. B-mode-guided vector-A-mode versus A-mode biometry to determine axial length and intraocular lens power.
    Bergès O; Puech M; Assouline M; Letenneur L; Gastellu-Etchegorry M
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1998 Apr; 24(4):529-35. PubMed ID: 9584251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.