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 *

78 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23822916)

  • 1. Modified Portable A-Scan Ultrasound Instrument from a USB B-Scan Device.
    Arnold RW
    Binocul Vis Strabolog Q Simms Romano; 2013; 28(2):115-7. PubMed ID: 23822916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Accuracy of immersion B-scan ultrasound biometry in high myopic patients with cataract].
    Yang Q; Chen B; Peng G; Li Z; Huang Y
    Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Jan; 50(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 24709131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry].
    Hrebcová J; Vasků A
    Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2008 Jan; 64(1):16-8. PubMed ID: 18225494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Diagnostic B-scan ultrasound of the lens before cataract surgery with intraocular artificial lens implantation].
    Załecki K
    Klin Oczna; 1995 Jun; 97(6):192-9. PubMed ID: 7643563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of IOL calculations in children: a comparison of immersion versus contact A-scan biometery.
    Ben-Zion I; Neely DE; Plager DA; Ofner S; Sprunger DT; Roberts GJ
    J AAPOS; 2008 Oct; 12(5):440-4. PubMed ID: 18599330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry in terms of target postoperative refraction].
    Hrebcová J; Skorkovská S; Vasků A
    Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2009 Jul; 65(4):143-6. PubMed ID: 19750832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Immersion B-guided versus contact A-mode biometry for accurate measurement of axial length and intraocular lens power calculation in siliconized eyes.
    Abu El Einen KG; Shalaby MH; El Shiwy HT
    Retina; 2011 Feb; 31(2):262-5. PubMed ID: 20829737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Comparative study of the biometric measurements made by immersion and contact techniques].
    Kronbauer AL; Kronbauer FL; Kronbauer CL
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2006; 69(6):875-80. PubMed ID: 17273683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of postoperative refractive outcomes: IOLMaster® versus immersion ultrasound.
    Whang WJ; Jung BJ; Oh TH; Byun YS; Joo CK
    Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging; 2012; 43(6):496-9. PubMed ID: 22869383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Intraocular lens calculation and ultrasound biometry: immersion and contact procedures].
    Hoffmann PC; Hütz WW; Eckhardt HB; Heuring AH
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1998 Sep; 213(3):161-5. PubMed ID: 9793914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measurement of the axial length of cataract eyes by laser Doppler interferometry.
    Hitzenberger CK; Drexler W; Dolezal C; Skorpik F; Juchem M; Fercher AF; Gnad HD
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 May; 34(6):1886-93. PubMed ID: 8491541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Role of B-scan ultrasonography in the localization of intraocular foreign bodies in the anterior segment: a report of three cases.
    Wang K; Liu J; Chen M
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2015 Aug; 15():102. PubMed ID: 26268356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Calculated versus A-scan result for axial length using different types of ultrasound probe tip.
    Snead MP; Rubinstein MP; Lea SH; Haworth SM
    Eye (Lond); 1990; 4 ( Pt 5)():718-22. PubMed ID: 2282947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A clinical evaluation of the BioPen.
    Kristensen RM; Lee DA; Christensen RE; Wynbrandt L
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1989 Jun; 107(6):596-600. PubMed ID: 2658615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Comparison of ultrasound and optic biometry with respect to ocular refraction after cataract surgery].
    Skorkovská S; Michálek J; Ruberová M; Synek S
    Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2004 Jan; 60(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 15011303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Immersion versus contact technique in the measurement of axial length by ultrasound.
    Olsen T; Nielsen PJ
    Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh); 1989 Feb; 67(1):101-2. PubMed ID: 2672694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [A study on axis length measurement of high myopia with cataract].
    Chen C; Chen W; Lin Y; He Y; Lu M
    Yan Ke Xue Bao; 2005 Dec; 21(4):124-6, 130. PubMed ID: 17162866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Comparision of two new optical biometry devices with an ultrasonic immersion biometer].
    Chiseliţă D; Cantemir A; Gălăţanu C; Irod A
    Oftalmologia; 2011; 55(4):104-10. PubMed ID: 22642145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Axial length in eyes with bilateral pediatric cataract at tertiary eye care center in Nepal: a preliminary report.
    Shrestha UD; Shrestha MK
    Nepal Med Coll J; 2011 Mar; 13(1):62-3. PubMed ID: 21991706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Contact or immersion technique for axial length measurement?
    Watson A; Armstrong R
    Aust N Z J Ophthalmol; 1999 Feb; 27(1):49-51. PubMed ID: 10080338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.