39 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38378511)
1. 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]
2. Variability in Objective Refraction for Persons with Down Syndrome.
Marsack JD; Ravikumar A; Benoit JS; Anderson HA
Optom Vis Sci; 2017 May; 94(5):574-581. PubMed ID: 28288016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Overestimation of hyperopia with autorefraction compared with retinoscopy under cycloplegia in school-age children.
Hashemi H; Khabazkhoob M; Asharlous A; Yekta A; Emamian MH; Fotouhi A
Br J Ophthalmol; 2018 Dec; 102(12):1717-1722. PubMed ID: 29439996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Noncycloplegic Compared with Cycloplegic Refraction in a Chicago School-Aged Population.
Guo X; Shakarchi AF; Block SS; Friedman DS; Repka MX; Collins ME
Ophthalmology; 2022 Jul; 129(7):813-820. PubMed ID: 35245603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The influence of refractive state and heterophorias on visual acuity and stereoacuity in healthy young adults.
Armarnik S; Kozlov Y; Yahalomi T; Ekshtein A; Levian L; Gurfinkel Y; Tehori O; Ben-Ari O; Kinori M
J AAPOS; 2022 Aug; 26(4):181.e1-181.e6. PubMed ID: 35863607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in Chinese school-aged children: a cross-sectional study.
Guo R; Shi L; Xu K; Hong D
Transl Pediatr; 2022 Jun; 11(6):933-946. PubMed ID: 35800271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Agreement of wavefront-based refraction, dry and cycloplegic autorefraction with subjective refraction.
Bamdad S; Momeni-Moghaddam H; Abdolahian M; Piñero DP
J Optom; 2022; 15(1):100-106. PubMed ID: 32896507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Cycloplegic refraction by 1% cyclopentolate in young adults: is it the gold standard? The Anyang University Students Eye Study (AUSES).
Sun YY; Wei SF; Li SM; Hu JP; Yang XH; Cao K; Lin CX; Du JL; Guo JY; Li H; Liu LR; Morgan IG; Wang NL
Br J Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 29930099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
