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.
120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 696795)
1. The discrepancy between retinoscopic and subjective measurements: Effect of age. Millodot M; O'Leary D Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1978 May; 55(5):309-16. PubMed ID: 696795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The discrepancy between retinoscopic and subjective refraction: effect of light polarization. O'Leary D; Millodot M Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1978 Aug; 55(8):553-6. PubMed ID: 742645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Some sources of discrepancy between static retinoscopy and subjective refraction. Charman WN Br J Physiol Opt; 1975; 30(2-4):108-18. PubMed ID: 801599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The artifact of retinoscopy revisited: comparison of refractive error measured by retinoscopy and visual evoked potential in the rat. Mutti DO; Ver Hoeve JN; Zadnik K; Murphy CJ Optom Vis Sci; 1997 Jul; 74(7):483-8. PubMed ID: 9293514 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Automatic refraction and the private ophthalmologist: Dioptron II compared with subjective examination. Mailer CM Can J Ophthalmol; 1978 Oct; 13(4):252-7. PubMed ID: 743607 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical aspects of the SR-IV Programmed Subjective Refractor. Bannon RE; Waltuck MH Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1982 Oct; 59(10):815-20. PubMed ID: 7148974 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Accommodation ability under the aspect of refractive, demographic, and biometric parameters]. Klatt K; Langenbucher A; Seitz B; Nguyen NX Ophthalmologe; 2006 Dec; 103(12):1032-7. PubMed ID: 17058064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Alternative methods of refraction: a comparison of three techniques. Smith K; Weissberg E; Travison TG Optom Vis Sci; 2010 Mar; 87(3):E176-82. PubMed ID: 20081549 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dioptron-and retinoscopy-subjective discrepancies: effect of age. French CN; Nixon JA; Wood IC Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1982; 2(3):227-30. PubMed ID: 7177649 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing low-cost handheld autorefractors: A practical approach to measuring refraction in low-resource settings. Agarwal A; Bloom DE; deLuise VP; Lubet A; Murali K; Sastry SM PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0219501. PubMed ID: 31614363 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Subjective refraction of the peripheral field using contrast detection acuity. Wang YZ; Thibos LN; Lopez N; Salmon T; Bradley A J Am Optom Assoc; 1996 Oct; 67(10):584-9. PubMed ID: 8942130 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Three-way comparison of retinoscopy, subjective, and Dioptron Nova refractive findings. Grosvenor T; Perrigin DM; Perrigin J Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1985 Jan; 62(1):63-5. PubMed ID: 3976838 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Experimental investigation of accommodation in eyes fit with multifocal contact lenses using a clinical auto-refractor. Altoaimi BH; Kollbaum P; Meyer D; Bradley A Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2018 Mar; 38(2):152-163. PubMed ID: 29315718 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Recent advances in measurement of monochromatic aberrations of human eyes. Atchison DA Clin Exp Optom; 2005 Jan; 88(1):5-27. PubMed ID: 15658922 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Does the discrepancy between retinoscopic and subjective refraction vary linearly with age? Kragha IK Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1986; 6(1):115-6. PubMed ID: 3714273 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Variant myopia: A new presentation? Hussaindeen JR; Anand M; Sivaraman V; Ramani KK; Allen PM Indian J Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; 66(6):799-805. PubMed ID: 29785987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical evaluation of refractive techniques. McKendrick AM; Brennan NA J Am Optom Assoc; 1995 Dec; 66(12):758-65. PubMed ID: 8557954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]