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.
377 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22407388)
21. Repeatability and reproducibility of Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry. Wang AS; Alencar LM; Weinreb RN; Tafreshi A; Deokule S; Vizzeri G; Medeiros FA J Glaucoma; 2013 Feb; 22(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 21701395 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. Kotecha A; Elsheikh A; Roberts CR; Zhu H; Garway-Heath DF Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Dec; 47(12):5337-47. PubMed ID: 17122122 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Assessment of intraocular pressure measured by Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer, Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, and Dynamic Contour Tonometry in healthy individuals. Ouyang PB; Li CY; Zhu XH; Duan XC Int J Ophthalmol; 2012; 5(1):102-7. PubMed ID: 22553765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Accuracy of Goldmann, ocular response analyser, Pascal and TonoPen XL tonometry in keratoconic and normal eyes. Mollan SP; Wolffsohn JS; Nessim M; Laiquzzaman M; Sivakumar S; Hartley S; Shah S Br J Ophthalmol; 2008 Dec; 92(12):1661-5. PubMed ID: 18757471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Relationship between novel intraocular pressure measurement from Corvis ST and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Matsuura M; Murata H; Fujino Y; Yanagisawa M; Nakao Y; Tokumo K; Nakakura S; Kiuchi Y; Asaoka R Br J Ophthalmol; 2020 Apr; 104(4):563-568. PubMed ID: 31362932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Goldmann Applanation Tonometer Versus Ocular Response Analyzer for Measuring Intraocular Pressure After Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty. Feizi S; Faramarzi A; Masoudi A; Azari AA; Veisi A Cornea; 2018 Nov; 37(11):1370-1375. PubMed ID: 29877927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Intraocular pressure and ocular pulse amplitude comparisons in different types of glaucoma using dynamic contour tonometry. Punjabi OS; Ho HK; Kniestedt C; Bostrom AG; Stamper RL; Lin SC Curr Eye Res; 2006 Oct; 31(10):851-62. PubMed ID: 17050277 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effectiveness of the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, the Dynamic Contour Tonometer, the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Corvis ST in Measuring Intraocular Pressure following FS-LASIK. Bao F; Huang W; Zhu R; Lu N; Wang Y; Li H; Wu S; Lin H; Wang J; Zheng X; Huang J; Li Y; Wang Q; Elsheikh A Curr Eye Res; 2020 Feb; 45(2):144-152. PubMed ID: 31869261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. [Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry, Goldmann and pneumotonometer in ocular hypertension patients and their relationship to pachymetry and ocular pulse amplitude]. Colás-Tomás T; Prieto-Del Cura M; Villafruela-Güemes I; Clariana-Martín A; Valdivia-Pérez A Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2012 Dec; 87(12):401-6. PubMed ID: 23121701 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The relationship between diurnal variations in intraocular pressure measurements and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Kotecha A; Crabb DP; Spratt A; Garway-Heath DF Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2009 Sep; 50(9):4229-36. PubMed ID: 19407025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. [Methods of measuring intraocular pressure independently of central corneal thickness]. Hager A; Wiegand W Ophthalmologe; 2008 Sep; 105(9):840-4. PubMed ID: 18438633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects. Medeiros FA; Sample PA; Weinreb RN Ophthalmology; 2007 Apr; 114(4):658-65. PubMed ID: 17141320 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of the ocular response analyzer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Feizi S; Hashemloo A; Rastegarpour A Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Jul; 52(8):5887-91. PubMed ID: 21447674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Correlation of intraocular pressure measured with goldmann and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Realini T; Weinreb RN; Hobbs G J Glaucoma; 2009 Feb; 18(2):119-23. PubMed ID: 19225347 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Goldmann applanation tonometry versus ocular response analyzer for intraocular pressure measurements in keratoconic eyes. Goldich Y; Barkana Y; Avni I; Zadok D Cornea; 2010 Sep; 29(9):1011-5. PubMed ID: 20539214 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]