241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19695882)
1. An assessment of vibration threshold using a biothesiometer compared to a C128-Hz tuning fork.
Temlett JA
J Clin Neurosci; 2009 Nov; 16(11):1435-8. PubMed ID: 19695882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Utility of vibration sense testing for use in developing countries: comparison of extinction time on the tuning fork to vibration thresholds on the Vibratron II.
London L; Thompson ML; Capper W; Myers JE
Neurotoxicology; 2000 Oct; 21(5):743-52. PubMed ID: 11130278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Use of the Rydel-Seiffer graduated tuning fork in the assessment of vibration threshold in postherpetic neuralgia patients and healthy controls.
Whitton TL; Johnson RW; Lovell AT
Eur J Pain; 2005 Apr; 9(2):167-71. PubMed ID: 15737809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Tuning fork (128 Hz) versus neurothesiometer: a comparison of methods of assessing vibration sensation in patients with diabetes mellitus.
O'Neill J; McCann SM; Lagan KM
Int J Clin Pract; 2006 Feb; 60(2):174-8. PubMed ID: 16451290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Measuring vibration sense in childhood. Normal values and initial experiences in polyneuropathies].
Meister C; Molinari L; Thun-Hohenstein L; Boltshauser E
Monatsschr Kinderheilkd; 1993 May; 141(5):416-20. PubMed ID: 8326962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sensory perception threshold measurement: an evaluation of semiobjective testing devices.
Halar EM; Hammond MC; LaCava EC; Camann C; Ward J
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1987 Aug; 68(8):499-507. PubMed ID: 3619613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Quantification of the gnostic sensitivity via measurement of the vibration threshold and of finger tip sensation].
Oosterhuis HJ; Bouwsma C; van Halsema B; Hollander RA; Kros CJ; Tombroek I
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1992 Oct; 136(40):1979-84. PubMed ID: 1407183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison between monofilament, tuning fork and vibration perception tests for screening patients at risk of foot complication.
Gin H; Rigalleau V; Baillet L; Rabemanantsoa C
Diabetes Metab; 2002 Dec; 28(6 Pt 1):457-61. PubMed ID: 12522325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Correlation of symptoms and clinical findings in polyneuropathy].
Mellgren SI; Lillebø A
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 1990 Sep; 110(21):2778-80. PubMed ID: 2219052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of vibrotactile thresholds with physical examination and electrophysiological assessment.
Gerr F; Letz R; Hershman D; Farraye J; Simpson D
Muscle Nerve; 1991 Nov; 14(11):1059-66. PubMed ID: 1745278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Examination of peripheral sensibility. Vibration test is more sensitive than monofilament test].
Sörman E; Edwall LL
Lakartidningen; 2002 Mar; 99(12):1339-40. PubMed ID: 11998167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of clinical tools and their diagnostic use in distal symmetric polyneuropathy.
Pourhamidi K; Dahlin LB; Englund E; Rolandsson O
Prim Care Diabetes; 2014 Apr; 8(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 23664849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The conventional tuning fork as a quantitative tool for vibration threshold.
Alanazy MH; Alfurayh NA; Almweisheer SN; Aljafen BN; Muayqil T
Muscle Nerve; 2018 Jan; 57(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 28466970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An initial evaluation of a proof-of-concept 128-Hz electronic tuning fork in the detection of peripheral neuropathy.
O'Brien T; Karem J
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc; 2014 Mar; 104(2):134-40. PubMed ID: 24725032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Low efficacy using the 256-Hz tuning fork when evaluating the influence of somatosensation in balance control for relatively healthy elderly.
Hafström A
Acta Otolaryngol; 2018 Oct; 138(10):937-944. PubMed ID: 30113876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of aging on thermal and vibratory thresholds of quantitative sensory testing.
Lin YH; Hsieh SC; Chao CC; Chang YC; Hsieh ST
J Peripher Nerv Syst; 2005 Sep; 10(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 16221286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility.
Miranda-Palma B; Sosenko JM; Bowker JH; Mizel MS; Boulton AJ
Diabetes Res Clin Pract; 2005 Oct; 70(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 16126117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Test-retest and time dependent variation and diagnostic values of vibratory sensation determined by biothesiometer and the Rydel-Seiffer tuning fork.
Wittenberg B; Svendsen TK; Gaist LM; Itani M; Gylfadottir SS; Jensen TS; Gaist D; Sindrup SH; Krøigård T
Brain Behav; 2021 Aug; 11(8):e2230. PubMed ID: 34087955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Progress in vibrotactile threshold evaluation techniques: a review.
Gandhi MS; Sesek R; Tuckett R; Bamberg SJ
J Hand Ther; 2011; 24(3):240-55; quiz 256. PubMed ID: 21439781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Thresholds for the perception of hand-transmitted vibration: dependence on contact area and contact location.
Morioka M; Griffin MJ
Somatosens Mot Res; 2005 Dec; 22(4):281-97. PubMed ID: 16503581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
