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.
22. Evaluation of an automated subjective refractor. Sheedy J; Schanz P; Bullimore M Optom Vis Sci; 2004 May; 81(5):334-40. PubMed ID: 15181358 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparison of refractive error measures by the IRX3 aberrometer and autorefraction. McCullough SJ; Little JA; Breslin KM; Saunders KJ Optom Vis Sci; 2014 Oct; 91(10):1183-90. PubMed ID: 25192432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Agreement Between Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction in Keraring-Implanted Keratoconic Eyes. Al-Tuwairqi WS; Ogbuehi KC; Razzouk H; Alanazi MA; Osuagwu UL Eye Contact Lens; 2017 Mar; 43(2):116-122. PubMed ID: 26825280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Accuracy of WASCA Aberrometer Refraction Compared to Manifest Refraction and Cycloplegic Refraction in Hyperopia Measurement. Fu D; Ding X; Shang J; Yu Z; Zhou X Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2020 Oct; 9(11):5. PubMed ID: 33101782 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The repeatability of automated and clinician refraction. Bullimore MA; Fusaro RE; Adams CW Optom Vis Sci; 1998 Aug; 75(8):617-22. PubMed ID: 9734807 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The Reliability and Acceptability of RDx-Based Tele-Controlled Subjective Refraction Compared with Traditional Subjective Refraction. Huang J; Li X; Yan T; Wen L; Pan L; Yang Z Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2022 Nov; 11(11):16. PubMed ID: 36394842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [The analysis of refractive error of long axial high myopic eyes after IOL implantation]. Zheng Q; Zhao Z; Lian H; Zhao Y Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Apr; 51(4):276-81. PubMed ID: 26081231 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Reduced vision in highly myopic eyes without ocular pathology: the ZOC-BHVI high myopia study. Jong M; Sankaridurg P; Li W; Resnikoff S; Naidoo K; He M Clin Exp Optom; 2018 Jan; 101(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 28696042 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison between subjective refraction and aberrometry-derived refraction in keratoconus patients and control subjects. Jinabhai A; O'Donnell C; Radhakrishnan H Curr Eye Res; 2010 Aug; 35(8):703-14. PubMed ID: 20673047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction. Jeganathan VSE; Valikodath N; Niziol LM; Hansen S; Apostolou H; Woodward MA Optom Vis Sci; 2018 Dec; 95(12):1135-1141. PubMed ID: 30451804 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A Randomized Crossover Study to Assess the Usability of Two New Vision Tests in Patients with Low Vision. Jolly JK; Gray JM; Salvetti AP; Han RC; MacLaren RE Optom Vis Sci; 2019 Jun; 96(6):443-452. PubMed ID: 31058709 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Use of the HARK autorefractor in children. Isenberg SJ; Del Signore M; Madani-Becker G Am J Ophthalmol; 2001 Apr; 131(4):438-41. PubMed ID: 11292405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. COMPARISON OF SMARTPHONE-BASED AND AUTOMATED REFRACTION WITH SUBJECTIVE REFRACTION FOR SCREENING OF REFRACTIVE ERRORS. Ee CL; Samsudin A Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2022 Oct; 29(5):588-594. PubMed ID: 34620023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Accuracy, repeatability, and clinical application of spherocylindrical automated refraction using time-based wavefront aberrometry measurements. Nissman SA; Tractenberg RE; Saba CM; Douglas JC; Lustbader JM Ophthalmology; 2006 Apr; 113(4):577.e1-2. PubMed ID: 16527354 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluation of objective and subjective binocular ocular refraction with looking in type. Fukushima M; Hirota M; Yukimori T; Hayashi A; Hirohara Y; Saika M; Matsuoka K BMC Ophthalmol; 2024 Apr; 24(1):170. PubMed ID: 38627750 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]