163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36394842)
1. 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]
2. Clinical Accuracy of the Nidek ARK-1 Autorefractor.
Paudel N; Adhikari S; Thakur A; Shrestha B; Loughman J
Optom Vis Sci; 2019 Jun; 96(6):407-413. PubMed ID: 31107837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An alternative clinical routine for subjective refraction based on power vectors with trial frames.
María Revert A; Conversa MA; Albarrán Diego C; Micó V
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2017 Jan; 37(1):24-32. PubMed ID: 28030877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing the reliability of tele-refraction for real time consultation with a remote optometrist.
Kapur N; Sabherwal S; Sharma P; Nayab J; Koh Pei Chen P; Srivastava S; Majumdar A
PLoS One; 2024; 19(6):e0299491. PubMed ID: 38913708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy and precision of automated subjective refraction in young hyperopes under cycloplegia.
Carracedo G; Carpena-Torres C; Pastrana C; Rodríguez-Lafora M; Serramito M; Privado-Aroco A; Espinosa-Vidal TM
J Optom; 2023; 16(4):252-260. PubMed ID: 37019707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction.
Pesudovs K; Parker KE; Cheng H; Applegate RA
Optom Vis Sci; 2007 May; 84(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 17502821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions.
Tabernero J; Otero C; Pardhan S
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2020 Jun; 9(7):23. PubMed ID: 32832229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Self-assessment of refractive errors using a simple optical approach.
Leube A; Kraft C; Ohlendorf A; Wahl S
Clin Exp Optom; 2018 May; 101(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 29356102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A comparison of a traditional and wavefront autorefraction.
Lebow KA; Campbell CE
Optom Vis Sci; 2014 Oct; 91(10):1191-8. PubMed ID: 25198541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A Comparison between Automated Subjective Refraction and Traditional Subjective Refraction in Keratoconus Patients.
Carracedo G; Carpena-Torres C; Pastrana C; Privado-Aroco A; Serramito M; Espinosa-Vidal TM; Rodríguez-Lafora M
Optom Vis Sci; 2021 Jun; 98(6):597-604. PubMed ID: 34081650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reliability and reproducibility of a handheld videorefractor.
Ogbuehi KC; Almaliki WH; AlQarni A; Osuagwu UL
Optom Vis Sci; 2015 May; 92(5):632-41. PubMed ID: 25822015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluating refraction and visual acuity with the Nidek autorefractometer AR-360A in a randomized population-based screening study.
Stoor K; Karvonen E; Liinamaa J; Saarela V
Acta Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; 96(4):384-389. PubMed ID: 29193822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical Evaluation Of a 0.05 D-step Binocular Wavefront Optometer in Young Adults in China.
Cheng M; Chen X; Lei Y; Li B; Jiang Y; Xu Y; Zhou X; Wang X
Clin Exp Optom; 2024 May; 107(4):395-401. PubMed ID: 36794379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Validation of a simple-to-use, affordable, portable, wavefront aberrometry-based auto refractometer in the adult population: A prospective study.
Rao DP; Negiloni K; Gurunathan S; Velkumar S; Sivaraman A; Baig AU; Kumari B; Murali K
BMC Ophthalmol; 2022 Dec; 22(1):498. PubMed ID: 36536321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of subjective refraction with a clinical adaptive optics visual simulator.
Hervella L; Villegas EA; Prieto PM; Artal P
J Cataract Refract Surg; 2019 Jan; 45(1):87-93. PubMed ID: 30309774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Subjective refraction using power vectors by updating a conventional phoropter with a Stokes lens for continuous astigmatic power generation.
Moreno JRA; Micó V; Albarrán Diego C
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2023 Sep; 43(5):1029-1039. PubMed ID: 37264763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison Between Aberrometry-Based Binocular Refraction and Subjective Refraction.
Carracedo G; Carpena-Torres C; Serramito M; Batres-Valderas L; Gonzalez-Bergaz A
Transl Vis Sci Technol; 2018 Jul; 7(4):11. PubMed ID: 30087806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical evaluation of the Topcon BV-1000 automated subjective refraction system.
Dave T; Fukuma Y
Optom Vis Sci; 2004 May; 81(5):323-33. PubMed ID: 15181357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
