153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32313133)
1. Visualizing the dynamic change of Ocular Response Analyzer waveform using Variational Autoencoder in association with the peripapillary retinal arteries angle.
Asano S; Asaoka R; Yamashita T; Aoki S; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Murata H; Nakakura S; Nakao Y; Kiuchi Y
Sci Rep; 2020 Apr; 10(1):6592. PubMed ID: 32313133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Relationship Between the Shift of the Retinal Artery Associated With Myopia and Ocular Response Analyzer Waveform Parameters.
Asano S; Asaoka R; Yamashita T; Aoki S; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Murata H; Nakakura S; Nakao Y; Kiuchi Y
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2019 Apr; 8(2):15. PubMed ID: 31016069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Relationship Between Corvis ST Tonometry Parameters and Ocular Response Analyzer Corneal Hysteresis.
Fujishiro T; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Murata H; Tokumo K; Nakakura S; Kiuchi Y; Asaoka R
J Glaucoma; 2020 Jun; 29(6):479-484. PubMed ID: 32134829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer.
Kotecha A; Elsheikh A; Roberts CR; Zhu H; Garway-Heath DF
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Dec; 47(12):5337-47. PubMed ID: 17122122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. The Relationship between the Waveform Parameters from the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Progression of Glaucoma.
Aoki S; Murata H; Matsuura M; Fujino Y; Nakakura S; Nakao Y; Kiuchi Y; Asaoka R
Ophthalmol Glaucoma; 2018; 1(2):123-131. PubMed ID: 32672562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Mechanical Interpretation of Ocular Response Analyzer Parameters.
Qin X; Yu M; Zhang H; Chen X; Li L
Biomed Res Int; 2019; 2019():5701236. PubMed ID: 31380431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The Relationship between Corvis ST Tonometry and Ocular Response Analyzer Measurements in Eyes with Glaucoma.
Matsuura M; Hirasawa K; Murata H; Yanagisawa M; Nakao Y; Nakakura S; Kiuchi Y; Asaoka R
PLoS One; 2016; 11(8):e0161742. PubMed ID: 27580243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The usefulness of CorvisST Tonometry and the Ocular Response Analyzer to assess the progression of glaucoma.
Matsuura M; Hirasawa K; Murata H; Nakakura S; Kiuchi Y; Asaoka R
Sci Rep; 2017 Jan; 7():40798. PubMed ID: 28094315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Goldmann applanation tonometry compared with corneal-compensated intraocular pressure in the evaluation of primary open-angle Glaucoma.
Ehrlich JR; Radcliffe NM; Shimmyo M
BMC Ophthalmol; 2012 Sep; 12():52. PubMed ID: 23009074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Corneal hysteresis in post-radial keratotomy primary open-angle glaucoma.
Hardin JS; Lee CI; Lane LF; Hester CC; Morshedi RG
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2018 Oct; 256(10):1971-1976. PubMed ID: 30039270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Ocular response analyser to assess hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in low tension, open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
Shah S; Laiquzzaman M; Mantry S; Cunliffe I
Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2008 Aug; 36(6):508-13. PubMed ID: 18954311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of ocular response analyzer parameters in primary open angle glaucoma and exfoliative glaucoma patients.
Beyazyıldız E; Beyazyıldız O; Arifoğlu HB; Altıntaş AK; Köklü SG
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 62(7):782-7. PubMed ID: 25116770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry.
Sullivan-Mee M; Gerhardt G; Halverson KD; Qualls C
J Glaucoma; 2009 Dec; 18(9):666-73. PubMed ID: 20010245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dynamic Scheimpflug Ocular Biomechanical Parameters in Healthy and Medically Controlled Glaucoma Eyes.
Miki A; Yasukura Y; Weinreb RN; Yamada T; Koh S; Asai T; Ikuno Y; Maeda N; Nishida K
J Glaucoma; 2019 Jul; 28(7):588-592. PubMed ID: 31107723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Diagnostic Efficacy of Normalization of Corneal Deformation Variables by the Intraocular Pressure in Glaucomatous Eyes.
Tejwani S; Devi S; Dinakaran S; Shetty R; Meshram P; Francis M; Sinha Roy A
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2016 Mar; 57(3):1082-6. PubMed ID: 26968738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Relative importance of factors affecting corneal hysteresis measurement.
Sullivan-Mee M; Katiyar S; Pensyl D; Halverson KD; Qualls C
Optom Vis Sci; 2012 May; 89(5):E803-11. PubMed ID: 22426173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Analyzing biomechanical parameters of the cornea with glaucoma severity in open-angle glaucoma.
Pillunat KR; Hermann C; Spoerl E; Pillunat LE
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 Jul; 254(7):1345-51. PubMed ID: 27118038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties with the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer.
Detry-Morel M; Jamart J; Pourjavan S
Eur J Ophthalmol; 2011; 21(2):138-48. PubMed ID: 20853262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
