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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38128436)

  • 1. Comment on: Comparison of the ocular ultrasonic and optical biometry devices in different quality measurements.
    Chaurasiya SK; Singh M; Jha J; Radhika
    J Optom; 2024; 17(3):100507. PubMed ID: 38128436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reply to Comment from Chaurasiya et al. on: Comparison of the ocular ultrasonic and optical biometry devices in different quality measurements.
    Khorrami-Nejad M; Khodair AM; Khodaparast M; Babapour Mofrad F; Dehghanian Nasrabadi F
    J Optom; 2024; 17(3):100511. PubMed ID: 38215612
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with standard ultrasonic pachymetry and optical devices.
    Doğan M; Ertan E
    Clin Exp Optom; 2019 Mar; 102(2):126-130. PubMed ID: 30557910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Comparision of two new optical biometry devices with an ultrasonic immersion biometer].
    Chiseliţă D; Cantemir A; Gălăţanu C; Irod A
    Oftalmologia; 2011; 55(4):104-10. PubMed ID: 22642145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of ocular biometry and intraocular lens power using a new biometer and a standard biometer.
    Srivannaboon S; Chirapapaisan C; Chonpimai P; Koodkaew S
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2014 May; 40(5):709-15. PubMed ID: 24656166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the validity and reliability of A-scan ultrasound biometry with a single use disposable cover.
    Cass K; Thompson CM; Tromans C; Wood IC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2002 Mar; 86(3):344-9. PubMed ID: 11864896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using New Swept-source Optical Coherence Tomography-based Optical Biometer with Other Devices.
    Cho YJ; Lim TH; Choi KY; Cho BJ
    Korean J Ophthalmol; 2018 Aug; 32(4):257-264. PubMed ID: 30091303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [First steps with the Zeiss IOLMaster: A comparison between acoustic contact biometry and non-contact optical biometry].
    Gantenbein C; Lang HM; Ruprecht KW; Georg T
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2003 May; 220(5):309-14. PubMed ID: 12766818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quality assessment of ultrasonic foetal biometry during the IUGR Risk Selection (IRIS) trial: A cross sectional study.
    Verfaille V; Haak MC; Pajkrt E; de Jonge A; Henrichs J; Franx A; Jellema P;
    Midwifery; 2020 Dec; 91():102842. PubMed ID: 33011426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A-scan (amplitude ultrasonography) measurement.
    Krimmer JE
    Insight; 2001 Apr; 26(2):56. PubMed ID: 11426209
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. [Comparative axial biometry of the eye].
    Kuck H; Makabe R
    Fortschr Ophthalmol; 1985; 82(1):91-3. PubMed ID: 3888800
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of a new optical biometry with an optical low-coherence reflectometry for ocular biometry.
    Güler E; Kulak AE; Totan Y; Yuvarlak A; Hepşen İF
    Cont Lens Anterior Eye; 2016 Oct; 39(5):336-41. PubMed ID: 27344235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data.
    Aktas S; Aktas H; Tetikoglu M; Sagdk HM; Özcura F
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2015 Dec; 94(48):e2169. PubMed ID: 26632900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the ocular ultrasonic and optical biometry devices in the different quality measurements.
    Khorrami-Nejad M; Khodair AM; Khodaparast M; Babapour Mofrad F; Dehghanian Nasrabadi F
    J Optom; 2023; 16(4):284-295. PubMed ID: 37567838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Standardizing constants for ultrasonic biometry, keratometry, and intraocular lens power calculations.
    Holladay JT
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1997 Nov; 23(9):1356-70. PubMed ID: 9423908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Anterior ocular biometry using 3-dimensional optical coherence tomography.
    Fukuda S; Kawana K; Yasuno Y; Oshika T
    Ophthalmology; 2009 May; 116(5):882-9. PubMed ID: 19410946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction using immersion ultrasound and optical biometry with and without formula optimization.
    Nemeth G; Nagy A; Berta A; Modis L
    Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2012 Sep; 250(9):1321-5. PubMed ID: 22527318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500.
    Reitblat O; Levy A; Kleinmann G; Assia EI
    Eye (Lond); 2018 Jul; 32(7):1244-1252. PubMed ID: 29527012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with a new optical device and a standard ultrasonic pachymeter.
    Nemeth G; Tsorbatzoglou A; Kertesz K; Vajas A; Berta A; Módis L
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2006 Mar; 32(3):460-3. PubMed ID: 16631058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.