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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18641814)

  • 1. Validation of a new fiber electrode prototype for clinical electroretinography.
    Berezovsky A; Pereira JM; Salomão SR; Santos VR; Schor P
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2008; 71(3):316-20. PubMed ID: 18641814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Flash electroretinography in standing horses using the DTL microfiber electrode.
    Komáromy AM; Andrew SE; Sapp HL; Brooks DE; Dawson WW
    Vet Ophthalmol; 2003 Mar; 6(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 12641840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Electroretinography in dogs using a fiber electrode prototype.
    Pereira AL; Montiani-Ferreira F; Santos VR; Salomão SR; Souza C; Berezovsky A
    Braz J Med Biol Res; 2013 Mar; 46(3):257-62. PubMed ID: 23558860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparing DTL microfiber and Neuroline skin electrode in the Mini Ganzfeld ERG.
    Lapkovska A; Palmowski-Wolfe AM; Todorova MG
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2016 Aug; 16():137. PubMed ID: 27491453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Performance of the DTL electrode compared to the jet contact lens electrode in clinical testing.
    Yin H; Pardue MT
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2004 Jan; 108(1):77-86. PubMed ID: 15104170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of performance and patient satisfaction of two types of ERG electrodes.
    Beeler P; Barthelmes D; Sutter FK; Helbig H; Fleischhauer JC
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2007 Apr; 224(4):265-8. PubMed ID: 17458789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of different recording parameters to establish a standard for flash electroretinography in rodents.
    Bayer AU; Cook P; Brodie SE; Maag KP; Mittag T
    Vision Res; 2001 Aug; 41(17):2173-85. PubMed ID: 11448710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy and results of photopic flash electroretinogram performed with skin electrodes in infants.
    Bui Quoc E; Albuisson E; Ingster-Moati I
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2012; 22(3):441-9. PubMed ID: 21748726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison between Dawson, Trick, and Litzkow electrode and contact lens electrodes used in clinical electroretinography.
    Kuze M; Uji Y
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2000; 44(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 10974293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian Allen, JET, C-glide, gold foil, DTL and skin electrodes.
    Esakowitz L; Kriss A; Shawkat F
    Eye (Lond); 1993; 7 ( Pt 1)():169-71. PubMed ID: 8325411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ERG electrode in pediatric patients: comparison of DTL fiber, PVA-gel, and non-corneal skin electrodes.
    Coupland SG; Janaky M
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1989 Apr; 71(4):427-33. PubMed ID: 2791850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reproducibility of electroretinograms recorded with DTL electrodes.
    Hébert M; Lachapelle P; Dumont M
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1995-1996; 91(4):333-42. PubMed ID: 8899303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recording the oscillatory potentials of the electroretinogram with the DTL electrode.
    Lachapelle P; Benoit J; Little JM; Lachapelle B
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1993; 83(2):119-30. PubMed ID: 8334927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Comparison between subtraction skin electrodes and corneal-contact electrodes in flash electroretinograms].
    Kaid T; Matsunag M; Hanaya J; Nakamura Y; Ohtani S; Miyat K; Kondo M
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 2013 Jan; 117(1):5-11. PubMed ID: 23424970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Full-field electroretinogram recorded with skin electrodes in normal adults.
    Fernandes AG; Salomão SR; Pereira JM; Berezovsky A
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2016; 79(6):390-394. PubMed ID: 28076567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of ERGs recorded with skin and corneal-contact electrodes in normal children and adults.
    Bradshaw K; Hansen R; Fulton A
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2004 Jul; 109(1):43-55. PubMed ID: 15675199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Safety and efficacy evaluation of a new ERG electrode (the LVP electrode) part II. Flash ERG pilot study.
    Mohan Ram LS; Jalali S; Faheemuddin S; Das T; Nutheti R
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2003 Sep; 107(2):179-83. PubMed ID: 14661908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The DTL ERG electrode comes in different shapes and sizes: Are they all good?
    Woo J; Jung S; Gauvin M; Lachapelle P
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2017 Oct; 135(2):155-164. PubMed ID: 28741115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A novel method to reduce noise in electroretinography using skin electrodes: a study of noise level, inter-session variability, and reproducibility.
    Yamashita T; Miki A; Tabuchi A; Funada H; Kondo M
    Int Ophthalmol; 2017 Apr; 37(2):317-324. PubMed ID: 27278187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Dark-adapted luminance-response functions with skin and corneal electrodes.
    Wali N; Leguire LE
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1991; 76(4):367-75. PubMed ID: 1935545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.