260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25938044)
1. Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in normal and glaucomatous eyes.
Özcura F; Yildirim N; Şahin A; Çolak E
Int J Ophthalmol; 2015; 8(2):299-304. PubMed ID: 25938044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus.
Özcura F; Yıldırım N; Tambova E; Şahin A
J Optom; 2017; 10(2):117-122. PubMed ID: 27402573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
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. Impact of corneal parameters on intraocular pressure measurements in different tonometry methods.
Zakrzewska A; Wiącek MP; Machalińska A
Int J Ophthalmol; 2019; 12(12):1853-1858. PubMed ID: 31850168
[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. 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]
8. [Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: Difference of Intraocular Pressure Values Between Eyes with and without Glaucomatous Damage in Thin Corneas].
Umurhan Akkan JC; Akkan F; Sezgin Akcay BI; Ayintap E; Tuncer K
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2015 Oct; 232(10):1190-7. PubMed ID: 26512850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in relation to corneal hysteresis and central corneal thickness in nonglaucomatous eyes.
Mangouritsas G; Mourtzoukos S; Mantzounis A; Alexopoulos L
Clin Ophthalmol; 2011; 5():1071-7. PubMed ID: 21847339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Variations of Intraocular Pressure Measured by Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, Tono-Pen, iCare Rebound Tonometer, and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometer in Patients With Corneal Edema After Phacoemulsification.
Kiddee W; Tanjana A
J Glaucoma; 2021 Apr; 30(4):317-324. PubMed ID: 33137014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects.
Barleon L; Hoffmann EM; Berres M; Pfeiffer N; Grus FH
Am J Ophthalmol; 2006 Oct; 142(4):583-90. PubMed ID: 17011849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Rebound, applanation, and dynamic contour tonometry in pathologic corneas.
Rosentreter A; Athanasopoulos A; Schild AM; Lappas A; Cursiefen C; Dietlein TS
Cornea; 2013 Mar; 32(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 22673854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of iCare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal corneas and in eyes with automated lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty.
Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Miani F; Tosoni C; Parisi L; Brusini P
Eye (Lond); 2011 May; 25(5):642-50. PubMed ID: 21436848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma.
Salvetat ML; Zeppieri M; Tosoni C; Brusini P
Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2007 May; 85(3):272-9. PubMed ID: 17488456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. IOP measured by dynamic contour tonometry correlates with IOP measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry in Japanese individuals.
Ito K; Tawara A; Kubota T; Harada Y
J Glaucoma; 2012 Jan; 21(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 21173706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Clinical evaluation of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer].
Detry-Morel M; Jamart J; Detry MB; Ledoux A; Pourjavan S
J Fr Ophtalmol; 2007 Mar; 30(3):260-70. PubMed ID: 17417152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Tonometry after Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments for Keratoconus.
Arribas-Pardo P; Mendez-Hernandez C; Cuiña-Sardiña R; Benitez-Del-Castillo JM; Garcia-Feijoo J
Optom Vis Sci; 2017 Oct; 94(10):986-992. PubMed ID: 28858044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry.
Kaufmann C; Bachmann LM; Thiel MA
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2004 Sep; 45(9):3118-21. PubMed ID: 15326129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
