118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38913708)
1. 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]
2. Reproducibility of manifest refraction between surgeons and optometrists in a clinical refractive surgery practice.
Reinstein DZ; Yap TE; Carp GI; Archer TJ; Gobbe M;
J Cataract Refract Surg; 2014 Mar; 40(3):450-9. PubMed ID: 24581774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Tele-refraction in tele-eye care settings.
Blais N; Tousignant B; Hanssens JM
Clin Exp Optom; 2022 Aug; 105(6):573-581. PubMed ID: 35094668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The evaluation of a web-based tool for measuring the uncorrected visual acuity and refractive error in keratoconus eyes: A method comparison study.
Muijzer MB; Claessens JLJ; Cassano F; Godefrooij DA; Prevoo YFDM; Wisse RPL
PLoS One; 2021; 16(8):e0256087. PubMed ID: 34407131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Validation of an Independent Web-Based Tool for Measuring Visual Acuity and Refractive Error (the Manifest versus Online Refractive Evaluation Trial): Prospective Open-Label Noninferiority Clinical Trial.
Wisse RPL; Muijzer MB; Cassano F; Godefrooij DA; Prevoo YFDM; Soeters N
J Med Internet Res; 2019 Nov; 21(11):e14808. PubMed ID: 31702560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Standardized patient methodology to assess refractive error reproducibility.
Shah R; Edgar DF; Rabbetts R; Harle DE; Evans BJ
Optom Vis Sci; 2009 May; 86(5):517-28. PubMed ID: 19319010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of noncycloplegic refraction performed at school screening camps.
Khurana R; Tibrewal S; Ganesh S; Tarkar R; Nguyen PTT; Siddiqui Z; Dasgupta S
Indian J Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; 66(6):806-811. PubMed ID: 29785988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comprehensive Primary Eye Care: A Comparison Between an In-Person Eye Exam and a Tele-Eye Care Exam.
Blais N; Tousignant B; Hanssens JM
Clin Optom (Auckl); 2024; 16():17-30. PubMed ID: 38197048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Selection considerations when using a 'standard optometrist' to evaluate clinical performance of other eye-care personnel.
Paudel P; Cronjé S; O'Connor PM; Rao GN; Holden BA
Clin Exp Optom; 2014 Sep; 97(5):426-32. PubMed ID: 25138747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. [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]
17. Student-led screening of school children for refractive error correction.
Bhattarai D; Gnyawali S; Silwal A; Puri S; Shrestha A; Kunwar MB; Upadhyay MP
Ophthalmic Epidemiol; 2018 Apr; 25(2):133-139. PubMed ID: 28937870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of self-refraction using a simple device, USee, with manifest refraction in adults.
Annadanam A; Varadaraj V; Mudie LI; Liu A; Plum WG; White JK; Collins ME; Friedman DS
PLoS One; 2018; 13(2):e0192055. PubMed ID: 29390026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
