356 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18565094)
1. Comparison of rebound and applanation tonometry in the management of patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Rehnman JB; Martin L
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2008 Jul; 28(4):382-6. PubMed ID: 18565094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice.
Halkiadakis I; Patsea E; Chatzimichali K; Skouriotis S; Chalkidou S; Amariotakis G; Papakonstadinou D; Theodossiadis G; Amariotakis A; Georgopoulos G
Acta Ophthalmol; 2009 May; 87(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 18631335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers.
Nakamura M; Darhad U; Tatsumi Y; Fujioka M; Kusuhara A; Maeda H; Negi A
Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Aug; 142(2):332-4. PubMed ID: 16876523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Intraocular pressure measurements with the Proview self-tonometer in comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy and glaucomatous eyes].
Meyer MW; Yevelenko V; Hoy L; Meyer A; Erb C
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2006 Nov; 223(11):899-903. PubMed ID: 17131250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of the rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.
Sahin A; Niyaz L; Yildirim N
Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2007; 35(4):335-9. PubMed ID: 17539785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Goldmann tonometry versus the Tono-Pen XL for intraocular pressure measurement: an evaluation of the potential impact on clinical decision making in glaucoma.
Carrim ZI; Lavy TE
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2009 Nov; 29(6):648-51. PubMed ID: 19821927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry.
Pakrou N; Gray T; Mills R; Landers J; Craig J
J Glaucoma; 2008; 17(1):43-7. PubMed ID: 18303384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the IOPen and iCare rebound tonometers with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population.
Jorge J; Fernandes P; Queirós A; Ribeiro P; Garcês C; Gonzalez-Meijome JM
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2010 Jan; 30(1):108-12. PubMed ID: 20444114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting.
Kim KN; Jeoung JW; Park KH; Yang MK; Kim DM
Acta Ophthalmol; 2013 Aug; 91(5):e392-6. PubMed ID: 23521889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer by experienced and inexperienced tonometrists.
Abraham LM; Epasinghe NC; Selva D; Casson R
Eye (Lond); 2008 Apr; 22(4):503-6. PubMed ID: 17159973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements and assessment of intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility with the portable ICare rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.
Salim S; Du H; Wan J
J Glaucoma; 2013; 22(4):325-9. PubMed ID: 23542696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by non-contact air puff versus Goldmann applanation tonometers in gas-filled vitrectomized eyes.
Patikulsila D; Taweemankongsab S; Ngamtipakorn S
J Med Assoc Thai; 2003 May; 86(5):467-72. PubMed ID: 12859105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical comparison of pascal dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in asymmetric open-angle glaucoma.
Sullivan-Mee M; Halverson KD; Qualls C
J Glaucoma; 2007 Dec; 16(8):694-9. PubMed ID: 18091457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of the ICare rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population.
Fernandes P; Díaz-Rey JA; Queirós A; Gonzalez-Meijome JM; Jorge J
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2005 Sep; 25(5):436-40. PubMed ID: 16101950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM; Garcia-Feijoo J; Vico E; Fernandez-Vidal A; Benitez del Castillo JM; Wasfi M; Garcia-Sanchez J
Ophthalmology; 2006 Dec; 113(12):2156-62. PubMed ID: 16996599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability.
Tonnu PA; Ho T; Sharma K; White E; Bunce C; Garway-Heath D
Br J Ophthalmol; 2005 Jul; 89(7):847-50. PubMed ID: 15965164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of the rebound, noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in routine clinical practice.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM; Jimenez-Santos M; Saenz-Frances F; Matilla-Rodero M; Mendez-Hernandez C; Herrero-Vanrell R; Garcia-Feijoo J
Acta Ophthalmol; 2011 Nov; 89(7):676-80. PubMed ID: 19900196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment of IcareONE rebound tonometer for self-measuring intraocular pressure.
Sakamoto M; Kanamori A; Fujihara M; Yamada Y; Nakamura M; Negi A
Acta Ophthalmol; 2014 May; 92(3):243-8. PubMed ID: 23586927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of rebound tonometer and Goldmann handheld applanation tonometer in congenital glaucoma.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM; Garcia-Feijoo J; Saenz-Frances F; Vizzeri G; Fernandez-Vidal A; Mendez-Hernandez C; Garcia-Sanchez J
J Glaucoma; 2009 Jan; 18(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 19142135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Intraocular pressure difference in Goldmann applanation tonometry versus Perkins hand-held applanation tonometry in overweight patients.
dos Santos MG; Makk S; Berghold A; Eckhardt M; Haas A
Ophthalmology; 1998 Dec; 105(12):2260-3. PubMed ID: 9855157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
