167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36394842)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. Reliability of refraction--a literature review.
Goss DA; Grosvenor T
J Am Optom Assoc; 1996 Oct; 67(10):619-30. PubMed ID: 8942135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Agreement and variability of subjective refraction, autorefraction, and wavefront aberrometry in pseudophakic patients.
Ruiss M; Findl O; Draschl P; Harrer-Seely A; Hirnschall N
J Cataract Refract Surg; 2021 Aug; 47(8):1056-1063. PubMed ID: 34292891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Retinoscopy/autorefraction: which is the best starting point for a noncycloplegic refraction?
Jorge J; Queirós A; Almeida JB; Parafita MA
Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Jan; 82(1):64-8. PubMed ID: 15630406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Virtual Subjective Refraction.
Perches S; Collados MV; Ares J
Optom Vis Sci; 2016 Oct; 93(10):1243-53. PubMed ID: 27391538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Subjective versus objective refraction in healthy young adults.
Kozlov Y; Kinori M; Armarnik S; Yahalomi T; Ekshtein A; Levian L; Mezad-Koursh D; Pikkel J; Ben-Ari O
BMC Ophthalmol; 2024 Feb; 24(1):79. PubMed ID: 38378511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Accuracy of a low-cost, portable, refractive error estimation device: Results of a diagnostic accuracy trial.
Joseph S; Sundar B; Rashme VL; Venkatachalam S; Ehrlich JR; Ravilla T
PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0272451. PubMed ID: 35921350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The child self-refraction study results from urban Chinese children in Guangzhou.
He M; Congdon N; MacKenzie G; Zeng Y; Silver JD; Ellwein L
Ophthalmology; 2011 Jun; 118(6):1162-9. PubMed ID: 21232802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Incidence of refractive errors with corrective aids subsequent selection].
Benes P; Synek S; Petrová S; Sokolová SJ; Forýtková L; Holoubková Z
Cesk Slov Oftalmol; 2012 Feb; 68(1):11-4, 16. PubMed ID: 22679692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of the Visual Acuity and Refractive Error Using OPDIII and Subjective Findings in Visually Normal Subjects.
Alamdar M; Jafarzadehpur E; Mirzajani A; Yekta AA; Khabazkhoob M
Eye Contact Lens; 2018 Nov; 44 Suppl 2():S302-S306. PubMed ID: 30379733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Evaluation of the auto-refraction function of the Nidek OPD-Scan III.
McGinnigle S; Naroo SA; Eperjesi F
Clin Exp Optom; 2014 Mar; 97(2):160-3. PubMed ID: 24024877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison of a Novel Binocular Refraction System with Standard Digital Phoropter Refraction.
Bossie T; Reilly J; Vera-Diaz FA
Optom Vis Sci; 2023 Jul; 100(7):451-458. PubMed ID: 37369097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. Clinical evaluation of an automated subjective refraction method implemented in a computer-controlled motorized phoropter.
Otero C; Aldaba M; Pujol J
J Optom; 2019; 12(2):74-83. PubMed ID: 30389250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparing the Netra smartphone refractor to subjective refraction.
Tousignant B; Garceau MC; Bouffard-Saint-Pierre N; Bellemare MM; Hanssens JM
Clin Exp Optom; 2020 Jul; 103(4):501-506. PubMed ID: 31773810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Cycloplegic autorefraction versus subjective refraction: the Tehran Eye Study.
Hashemi H; Khabazkhoob M; Asharlous A; Soroush S; Yekta A; Dadbin N; Fotouhi A
Br J Ophthalmol; 2016 Aug; 100(8):1122-7. PubMed ID: 26541436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Diagnostic accuracy and variability of autorefraction by the Tracey Visual Function Analyzer and the Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001 in relation to subjective refraction.
Cleary G; Spalton DJ; Patel PM; Lin PF; Marshall J
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2009 Mar; 29(2):173-81. PubMed ID: 19236587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
