320 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30114419)
1. Association between Rates of Visual Field Progression and Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Different Tonometers.
Susanna BN; Ogata NG; Daga FB; Susanna CN; Diniz-Filho A; Medeiros FA
Ophthalmology; 2019 Jan; 126(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 30114419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The Influence of Corneal Biomechanical Properties on Intraocular Pressure Measurements Using a Rebound Self-tonometer.
Brown L; Foulsham W; Pronin S; Tatham AJ
J Glaucoma; 2018 Jun; 27(6):511-518. PubMed ID: 29557828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effect of thin, thick, and normal corneas on Goldmann intraocular pressure measurements and correction formulae in individual eyes.
Park SJ; Ang GS; Nicholas S; Wells AP
Ophthalmology; 2012 Mar; 119(3):443-9. PubMed ID: 22035576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers.
Kotecha A; White E; Schlottmann PG; Garway-Heath DF
Ophthalmology; 2010 Apr; 117(4):730-7. PubMed ID: 20122737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Relationship of central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure by iCare rebound tonometer.
Rao A; Kumar M; Prakash B; Varshney G
J Glaucoma; 2014 Aug; 23(6):380-4. PubMed ID: 23221904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intraocular pressure measured by dynamic contour tonometer and ocular response analyzer in normal tension glaucoma.
Morita T; Shoji N; Kamiya K; Hagishima M; Fujimura F; Shimizu K
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2010 Jan; 248(1):73-7. PubMed ID: 19693527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the corneal biomechanical properties with the Ocular Response Analyzer® (ORA) in African and Caucasian normal subjects and patients with glaucoma.
Detry-Morel M; Jamart J; Hautenauven F; Pourjavan S
Acta Ophthalmol; 2012 Mar; 90(2):e118-24. PubMed ID: 21989354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Corneal Biomechanics and Visual Field Progression in Eyes with Seemingly Well-Controlled Intraocular Pressure.
Susanna BN; Ogata NG; Jammal AA; Susanna CN; Berchuck SI; Medeiros FA
Ophthalmology; 2019 Dec; 126(12):1640-1646. PubMed ID: 31519385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Can Corneal Biomechanical Properties Explain Difference in Tonometric Measurement in Normal Eyes?
Dey A; David RL; Asokan R; George R
Optom Vis Sci; 2018 Feb; 95(2):120-128. PubMed ID: 29370019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma.
Kaushik S; Pandav SS; Banger A; Aggarwal K; Gupta A
Am J Ophthalmol; 2012 May; 153(5):840-849.e2. PubMed ID: 22310080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements and assessment of intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility with the portable ICare rebound tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients.
Salim S; Du H; Wan J
J Glaucoma; 2013; 22(4):325-9. PubMed ID: 23542696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of ICare, dynamic contour tonometer, and ocular response analyzer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in patients with glaucoma.
Vandewalle E; Vandenbroeck S; Stalmans I; Zeyen T
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2009; 19(5):783-9. PubMed ID: 19787598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Corneal biomechanical properties affect Goldmann applanation tonometry in primary open-angle glaucoma.
Costin BR; Fleming GP; Weber PA; Mahmoud AM; Roberts CJ
J Glaucoma; 2014 Feb; 23(2):69-74. PubMed ID: 23603825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study.
Medeiros FA; Meira-Freitas D; Lisboa R; Kuang TM; Zangwill LM; Weinreb RN
Ophthalmology; 2013 Aug; 120(8):1533-40. PubMed ID: 23642371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Relationship Between Asymmetries of Corneal Properties and Rates of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients.
Estrela T; Jammal AA; Mariottoni EB; Urata CN; Ogata NG; Berchuck SI; Medeiros FA
J Glaucoma; 2020 Oct; 29(10):872-877. PubMed ID: 32769735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Factors influencing intermethod agreement between goldmann applanation, pascal dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry.
Sullivan-Mee M; Lewis SE; Pensyl D; Gerhardt G; Halverson KD; Qualls C
J Glaucoma; 2013 Aug; 22(6):487-95. PubMed ID: 22407388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Localization in Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss Vulnerable to Posture-Induced Intraocular Pressure Changes in Open-Angle Glaucoma.
Manabe Y; Sawada A; Yamamoto T
Am J Ophthalmol; 2020 May; 213():9-16. PubMed ID: 31953057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Association Between 24-Hour Intraocular Pressure Monitored With Contact Lens Sensor and Visual Field Progression in Older Adults With Glaucoma.
De Moraes CG; Mansouri K; Liebmann JM; Ritch R;
JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Jul; 136(7):779-785. PubMed ID: 29800011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
