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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33298781)

  • 1. Globe axial length data in children using immersion A-scan ultrasound.
    Trivedi RH; Wilson ME
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2021 Nov; 47(11):1481-1482. PubMed ID: 33298781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [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]  

  • 3. Axial length measurements by contact and immersion techniques in pediatric eyes with cataract.
    Trivedi RH; Wilson ME
    Ophthalmology; 2011 Mar; 118(3):498-502. PubMed ID: 21035871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contact versus immersion biometry of axial length before cataract surgery.
    Hennessy MP; Franzco ; Chan DG
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2003 Nov; 29(11):2195-8. PubMed ID: 14670431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [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]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis.
    Packer M; Fine IH; Hoffman RS; Coffman PG; Brown LK
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2002 Feb; 28(2):239-42. PubMed ID: 11821203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Laser interference biometry versus ultrasound biometry in certain clinical conditions.
    Lege BA; Haigis W
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2004 Jan; 242(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 14648138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Ocular Ultrasonography and Biometry in the Cinereous Vulture (
    Apruzzese A; Rodríguez A; González F; López I; Suárez L; González-Alonso-Alegre E
    J Avian Med Surg; 2018 Dec; 32(4):307-313. PubMed ID: 31112644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOLMaster .
    Lam AK; Chan R; Pang PC
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2001 Nov; 21(6):477-83. PubMed ID: 11727876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [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]  

  • 14. Refractive outcomes comparison between the Lenstar LS 900® optical biometry and immersion A-scan ultrasound.
    Naicker P; Sundralingam S; Peyman M; Juana A; Mohamad NF; Win MM; Loo A; Subrayan V
    Int Ophthalmol; 2015 Aug; 35(4):459-66. PubMed ID: 25024102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. B-Scan Biometry and Color Doppler Ultrasound Imaging of the Eye in Clinically Normal Donkeys (Equus asinus): Effect of Laterality, Maturity and Gender.
    Wafy MN; Hassan EA; El-Maaty AMA; Abu-Seida AM
    J Equine Vet Sci; 2021 Jun; 101():103419. PubMed ID: 33993935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of contact and immersion techniques for axial length measurement and implant power calculation.
    Schelenz J; Kammann J
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1989 Jul; 15(4):425-8. PubMed ID: 2674412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Accuracy of ultrasound measurements of the axial length of the eye].
    Kavan P; Vlková E; Blazek J
    Cesk Oftalmol; 1991 Mar; 47(2):144-9. PubMed ID: 1913899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and low coherence reflectometry for ocular biometry in cataract patients.
    Montés-Micó R; Carones F; Buttacchio A; Ferrer-Blasco T; Madrid-Costa D
    J Refract Surg; 2011 Sep; 27(9):665-71. PubMed ID: 21323302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Usefulness of contralateral oriented fixation in ocular axial length measurement by ultrasound A-scan: A prospective study of 50 eyes].
    Abdellaoui T; Laaribi N; Bouayad G; Akioud W; Mouzari Y; Elasri F; Reda K; Oubaaz A
    J Fr Ophtalmol; 2019 Apr; 42(4):e193-e194. PubMed ID: 30904287
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the Zeiss IOLMaster and applanation A-scan ultrasound: biometry for intraocular lens calculation.
    Rose LT; Moshegov CN
    Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2003 Apr; 31(2):121-4. PubMed ID: 12648044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.