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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35394466)

  • 21. Intraocular Pressure Measurement Using Ocular Response Analyzer, Dynamic Contour Tonometer, and Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST.
    Ramm L; Herber R; Spoerl E; Raiskup F; Pillunat LE; Terai N
    J Ophthalmol; 2019; 2019():3879651. PubMed ID: 31737355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effectiveness of 4 tonometers in measuring IOP after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK, SMILE, and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy.
    Chen S; Lopes BT; Huang W; Zheng X; Wang J; Zhu R; Vinciguerra R; Li Y; Wang Q; Li H; Bao F; Elsheikh A
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2020 Jul; 46(7):967-974. PubMed ID: 32271270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Intraocular pressure and photorefractive keratectomy: a comparison of three different tonometers.
    Garzozi HJ; Chung HS; Lang Y; Kagemann L; Harris A
    Cornea; 2001 Jan; 20(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 11189000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison among Ocular Response Analyzer, Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy children.
    Salouti R; Alishiri AA; Gharebaghi R; Naderi M; Jadidi K; Shojaei-Baghini A; Talebnejad M; Nasiri Z; Hosseini S; Heidary F
    Int J Ophthalmol; 2018; 11(8):1330-1336. PubMed ID: 30140637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry.
    Francis BA; Hsieh A; Lai MY; Chopra V; Pena F; Azen S; Varma R;
    Ophthalmology; 2007 Jan; 114(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 17070592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus.
    Özcura F; Yıldırım N; Tambova E; Şahin A
    J Optom; 2017; 10(2):117-122. PubMed ID: 27402573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Influence of LASEK on Schiøtz, Goldmann and dynamic contour Tonometry.
    Sales-Sanz M; Arranz-Marquez E; Arruabarrena C; Teus MA
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2018 Jan; 256(1):173-179. PubMed ID: 29032414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer.
    Renier C; Zeyen T; Fieuws S; Vandenbroeck S; Stalmans I
    Int Ophthalmol; 2010 Dec; 30(6):651-9. PubMed ID: 20499265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry and their relationship to corneal properties, refractive error, and ocular pulse amplitude.
    Erickson DH; Goodwin D; Rollins M; Belaustegui A; Anderson C
    Optometry; 2009 Apr; 80(4):169-74. PubMed ID: 19329059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure.
    Kouchaki B; Hashemi H; Yekta A; Khabazkhoob M
    J Curr Ophthalmol; 2017 Jun; 29(2):92-97. PubMed ID: 28626817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison between different tonometers following intrastromal corneal ring segments implantation.
    Elfwwal MM; Elbasty MK; Khattab MF; ElShazly MI
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2022 Jan; 32(1):43-49. PubMed ID: 34472983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and goldmann applanation tonometry in African American subjects.
    Medeiros FA; Sample PA; Weinreb RN
    Ophthalmology; 2007 Apr; 114(4):658-65. PubMed ID: 17141320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Changes in intraocular pressure values measured with noncontact tonometer (NCT), ocular response analyzer (ORA) and corvis scheimpflug technology tonometer (CST) in the early phase after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).
    Shen Y; Su X; Liu X; Miao H; Fang X; Zhou X
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2016 Nov; 16(1):205. PubMed ID: 27863469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements With Goldmann Applanation Tonometry, Tonopen XL, and Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry in Patients With Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.
    Yildiz I; Altan C; Çakmak S; Genc S; Yildirim Y; Agca A
    J Glaucoma; 2022 Nov; 31(11):909-914. PubMed ID: 35939831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry.
    Pepose JS; Feigenbaum SK; Qazi MA; Sanderson JP; Roberts CJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Jan; 143(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 17188041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical Evaluation of Methods to Correct Intraocular Pressure Measurements by the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, Ocular Response Analyzer, and Corvis ST Tonometer for the Effects of Corneal Stiffness Parameters.
    Bao F; Huang Z; Huang J; Wang J; Deng M; Li L; Yu A; Wang Q; Elsheikh A
    J Glaucoma; 2016 Jun; 25(6):510-9. PubMed ID: 26709500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effect of accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy on dynamic corneal response parameters and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure measured with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer in healthy myopic patients.
    Lee H; Roberts CJ; Ambrósio R; Elsheikh A; Kang DSY; Kim TI
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2017 Jul; 43(7):937-945. PubMed ID: 28823441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.