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 *

243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27278187)

  • 1. A novel method to reduce noise in electroretinography using skin electrodes: a study of noise level, inter-session variability, and reproducibility.
    Yamashita T; Miki A; Tabuchi A; Funada H; Kondo M
    Int Ophthalmol; 2017 Apr; 37(2):317-324. PubMed ID: 27278187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy and results of photopic flash electroretinogram performed with skin electrodes in infants.
    Bui Quoc E; Albuisson E; Ingster-Moati I
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2012; 22(3):441-9. PubMed ID: 21748726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of different recording parameters to establish a standard for flash electroretinography in rodents.
    Bayer AU; Cook P; Brodie SE; Maag KP; Mittag T
    Vision Res; 2001 Aug; 41(17):2173-85. PubMed ID: 11448710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improving the quality of electroretinogram recordings using active electrodes.
    Yip YWY; Man TC; Pang CP; Brelén ME
    Exp Eye Res; 2018 Nov; 176():46-52. PubMed ID: 29908144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Comparison between subtraction skin electrodes and corneal-contact electrodes in flash electroretinograms].
    Kaid T; Matsunag M; Hanaya J; Nakamura Y; Ohtani S; Miyat K; Kondo M
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 2013 Jan; 117(1):5-11. PubMed ID: 23424970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of varying skin surface electrode position on electroretinogram responses recorded using a handheld stimulating and recording system.
    Hobby AE; Kozareva D; Yonova-Doing E; Hossain IT; Katta M; Huntjens B; Hammond CJ; Binns AM; Mahroo OA
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2018 Oct; 137(2):79-86. PubMed ID: 30046929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing DTL microfiber and Neuroline skin electrode in the Mini Ganzfeld ERG.
    Lapkovska A; Palmowski-Wolfe AM; Todorova MG
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2016 Aug; 16():137. PubMed ID: 27491453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Inter-subject, inter-ocular and inter-session repeatability of the photopic negative response of the electroretinogram recorded using DTL and skin electrodes.
    Mortlock KE; Binns AM; Aldebasi YH; North RV
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 121(2):123-34. PubMed ID: 20607349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Full-field electroretinogram recorded with skin electrodes in normal adults.
    Fernandes AG; Salomão SR; Pereira JM; Berezovsky A
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2016; 79(6):390-394. PubMed ID: 28076567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Short-term inter-visit variability of erg amplitudes in normal subjects and patients with retinitis pigmentosa.
    Fishman GA; Chappelow AV; Anderson RJ; Rotenstreich Y; Derlacki DJ
    Retina; 2005 Dec; 25(8):1014-21. PubMed ID: 16340532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Validation of a new fiber electrode prototype for clinical electroretinography.
    Berezovsky A; Pereira JM; Salomão SR; Santos VR; Schor P
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2008; 71(3):316-20. PubMed ID: 18641814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison between Dawson, Trick, and Litzkow electrode and contact lens electrodes used in clinical electroretinography.
    Kuze M; Uji Y
    Jpn J Ophthalmol; 2000; 44(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 10974293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison between fullfield electroretinography obtained from handheld and tabletop devices in normal subjects.
    Sachidanandam R; Khetan V; Sen P
    Can J Ophthalmol; 2015 Apr; 50(2):166-71. PubMed ID: 25863859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Photopic negative response using a handheld mini-ganzfeld stimulator in healthy adults: normative values, intra- and inter-session variability.
    Berezovsky A; Karanjia R; Fernandes AG; Botelho GIS; Bueno TLN; Ferraz NN; Sacai PY; Coupland SG; Sadun AA; Salomão SR
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2021 Apr; 142(2):153-163. PubMed ID: 32681419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of guinea pig electroretinograms measured with bipolar corneal and unipolar intravitreal electrodes.
    Bui BV; Weisinger HS; Sinclair AJ; Vingrys AJ
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1998; 95(1):15-34. PubMed ID: 10189179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. New Mydriasis-Free Electroretinogram Recorded with Skin Electrodes in Healthy Subjects.
    Asakawa K; Amino K; Iwase M; Kusayanagi Y; Nakamura A; Suzuki R; Yuuki T; Ishikawa H
    Biomed Res Int; 2017; 2017():8539747. PubMed ID: 28713831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Flash electroretinography: normative values with surface skin electrodes and no pupil dilation using a standard stimulation protocol.
    Papathanasiou ES; Papacostas SS
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2008 Jan; 116(1):61-73. PubMed ID: 17610098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Inter-ocular and inter-session reliability of the electroretinogram photopic negative response (PhNR) in non-human primates.
    Fortune B; Bui BV; Cull G; Wang L; Cioffi GA
    Exp Eye Res; 2004 Jan; 78(1):83-93. PubMed ID: 14667830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Light- and dark-adapted electroretinograms (ERGs) and ocular pigmentation: comparison of brown- and blue-eyed cohorts.
    Al Abdlseaed A; McTaggart Y; Ramage T; Hamilton R; McCulloch DL
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2010 Oct; 121(2):135-46. PubMed ID: 20665068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The repeatability and variability of the multifocal electroretinogram for four different electrodes.
    Mohidin N; Yap MK; Jacobs RJ
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1997 Nov; 17(6):530-5. PubMed ID: 9666928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.