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.
195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22594695)
1. Keratometry obtained by corneal mapping versus the IOLMaster in the prediction of postoperative refraction in routine cataract surgery. Dulku S; Smith HB; Antcliff RJ Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2013; 41(1):12-8. PubMed ID: 22594695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Intraocular lens power measured by partial coherence interferometry. Hsieh YT; Wang IJ Optom Vis Sci; 2012 Dec; 89(12):1697-701. PubMed ID: 23147857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Intraocular Lens Power Selection after Radial Keratotomy: Topography, Manual, and IOLMaster Keratometry Results Using Haigis Formulas. Geggel HS Ophthalmology; 2015 May; 122(5):897-902. PubMed ID: 25601534 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery. Srivannaboon S; Chirapapaisan C Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2019 Dec; 257(12):2677-2682. PubMed ID: 31486917 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry readings after corneal refractive surgery in the absence of clinical history. Bialer OY; Kaiserman I; Bahar I Ophthalmic Res; 2014; 52(4):217-23. PubMed ID: 25402842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing the postoperative refractive predictability of Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 500 after a multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Andrade Junior N; Hida WT; Messias AMV; Lyra JM; Silva CAM; Alves MR Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2020; 83(2):141-145. PubMed ID: 32159594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of refractive outcomes using immersion ultrasound biometry and IOLMaster biometry. Landers J; Goggin M Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2009 Aug; 37(6):566-9. PubMed ID: 19702705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy of predicted refraction with multifocal intraocular lenses using two biometry measurement devices and multiple intraocular lens power calculation formulas. Reitblat O; Assia EI; Kleinmann G; Levy A; Barrett GD; Abulafia A Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2015; 43(4):328-34. PubMed ID: 25491591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using partial coherence interferometry in patients with high myopia. Roessler GF; Dietlein TS; Plange N; Roepke AK; Dinslage S; Walter P; Mazinani BA Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2012 May; 32(3):228-33. PubMed ID: 22512374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation. Savini G; Barboni P; Carbonelli M; Hoffer KJ J Cataract Refract Surg; 2009 Jul; 35(7):1193-7. PubMed ID: 19545807 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation by the IOLMaster in phakic and eyes with hydrophobic acrylic lenses. Chang SW; Yu CY; Chen DP Ophthalmology; 2009 Jul; 116(7):1336-42. PubMed ID: 19427697 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the Pentacam equivalent keratometry reading and IOL Master keratometry measurement in intraocular lens power calculations. Karunaratne N Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2013 Dec; 41(9):825-34. PubMed ID: 23601493 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Scheimpflug camera combined with placido-disk corneal topography and optical biometry for intraocular lens power calculation. Kirgiz A; Atalay K; Kaldirim H; Cabuk KS; Akdemir MO; Taskapili M Int Ophthalmol; 2017 Aug; 37(4):781-786. PubMed ID: 27586670 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery: Scheimpflug keratometry versus standard automated keratometry in virgin corneas. Lam S; Gupta BK; Hahn JM; Manastersky NA J Cataract Refract Surg; 2011 Nov; 37(11):1984-7. PubMed ID: 21889873 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Relationship between postoperative refractive outcomes and cataract density: multiple regression analysis. Ueda T; Ikeda H; Ota T; Matsuura T; Hara Y J Cataract Refract Surg; 2010 May; 36(5):806-9. PubMed ID: 20457373 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of automated and partial coherence keratometry and resulting choice of toric IOL. Ale Magar JB; Cunningham F; Brian G Optom Vis Sci; 2013 Apr; 90(4):385-91. PubMed ID: 23435222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of the Astigmatic Power of Toric Intraocular Lenses Using Three Toric Calculators. Park HJ; Lee H; Woo YJ; Kim EK; Seo KY; Kim HY; Kim TI Yonsei Med J; 2015 Jul; 56(4):1097-105. PubMed ID: 26069135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. Kaswin G; Rousseau A; Mgarrech M; Barreau E; Labetoulle M J Cataract Refract Surg; 2014 Apr; 40(4):593-600. PubMed ID: 24680520 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Refractive error after cataract surgery combined with descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. de Sanctis U; Damiani F; Brusasco L; Grignolo F Am J Ophthalmol; 2013 Aug; 156(2):254-259.e1. PubMed ID: 23870359 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]