229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18791544)
1. Influence of age, central corneal thickness, and quality score on dynamic contour tonometry.
Jordão ML; Lupinacci AP; Ferreira EL; Enomoto IJ; Costa VP
Eye (Lond); 2009 Jun; 23(6):1364-9. PubMed ID: 18791544
[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. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in deep lamellar and penetrating keratoplasties.
Ceruti P; Morbio R; Marraffa M; Marchini G
Am J Ophthalmol; 2008 Feb; 145(2):215-221. PubMed ID: 18222191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in healthy and glaucomatous eyes.
Ceruti P; Morbio R; Marraffa M; Marchini G
Eye (Lond); 2009 Feb; 23(2):262-9. PubMed ID: 18219335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.
Kotecha A; White ET; Shewry JM; Garway-Heath DF
Br J Ophthalmol; 2005 Dec; 89(12):1572-5. PubMed ID: 16299132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes.
Hager A; Loge K; Schroeder B; Füllhas MO; Wiegand W
J Glaucoma; 2008 Aug; 17(5):361-5. PubMed ID: 18703945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessment of factors affecting the difference in intraocular pressure measurements between dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry.
Wang J; Cayer MM; Descovich D; Kamdeu-Fansi A; Harasymowycz PJ; Li G; Lesk MR
J Glaucoma; 2011 Oct; 20(8):482-7. PubMed ID: 21048515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature radius on the intraocular pressure as measured by different tonometers: noncontact and goldmann applanation tonometers.
Harada Y; Hirose N; Kubota T; Tawara A
J Glaucoma; 2008 Dec; 17(8):619-25. PubMed ID: 19092456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Corneal parameters and difference between goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal eyes.
Lanza M; Borrelli M; De Bernardo M; Filosa ML; Rosa N
J Glaucoma; 2008 Sep; 17(6):460-4. PubMed ID: 18794680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Influence of corneal thickness changes during active uveitis on Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry.
Heinz C; Taneri S; Roesel M; Heiligenhaus A
Ophthalmic Res; 2012; 48(1):38-42. PubMed ID: 22354174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Comparison of Goldmann tonometry, pneumotonometry and the effect of the central corneal thickness].
Molina N; Milla E; Bitrian E; Larena C; Martínez L
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2010 Oct; 85(10):325-8. PubMed ID: 21168056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of central corneal thickness on dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in primary open-angle glaucoma.
Grieshaber MC; Schoetzau A; Zawinka C; Flammer J; Orgul S
Arch Ophthalmol; 2007 Jun; 125(6):740-4. PubMed ID: 17562982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers.
Kotecha A; White E; Schlottmann PG; Garway-Heath DF
Ophthalmology; 2010 Apr; 117(4):730-7. PubMed ID: 20122737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.
Francis BA; Hsieh A; Lai MY; Chopra V; Pena F; Azen S; Varma R;
Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 17070592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry are not correlated with central corneal thickness in primary open angle glaucoma.
Regev G; Harris A; Siesky B; Shoshani Y; Egan P; Moss A; Zalish M; WuDunn D; Ehrlich R
J Glaucoma; 2011; 20(5):282-6. PubMed ID: 20577097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A clinical comparison of dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry.
Yalcinbayir O; Baykara M; Atasoy A; Ozcetin H
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging; 2010; 41(4):437-42. PubMed ID: 20438047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry following Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK).
Bochmann F; Kaufmann C; Becht C; Bachmann LM; Thiel MA
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2009 Apr; 226(4):241-4. PubMed ID: 19384775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in keratoconus.
Unterlauft JD; Schädle N; Kasper K; Klink T; Geerling G
Cornea; 2011 Oct; 30(10):1078-82. PubMed ID: 21716097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An ultra-high-speed Scheimpflug camera for evaluation of corneal deformation response and its impact on IOP measurement.
Leung CK; Ye C; Weinreb RN
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Apr; 54(4):2885-92. PubMed ID: 23482466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
