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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7566903)

  • 1. Refractive variation during autorefraction: multivariate distribution of refractive status.
    Rubin A; Harris WF
    Optom Vis Sci; 1995 Jun; 72(6):403-10. PubMed ID: 7566903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impact of Viewing Conditions and Vision Anomalies on Accuracy and Dynamics of Noncycloplegic Autorefraction.
    Kiermasz J; Sobol M; Pniewski J
    Optom Vis Sci; 2022 Dec; 99(12):844-852. PubMed ID: 36594753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Systematic measurement errors involved in over-refraction using an autorefractor (Grand-Seiko WV-500): is measurement of accommodative lag through spectacle lenses valid?
    Kimura S; Hasebe S; Ohtsuki H
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2007 May; 27(3):281-6. PubMed ID: 17470241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Variability of the refractive state: meridional profiles and uniform variation.
    Rubin A; Harris WF
    Optom Vis Sci; 1997 Jun; 74(6):414-9. PubMed ID: 9255820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor.
    Wesemann W; Dick B
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2000 Jan; 26(1):62-70. PubMed ID: 10646148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Variation during autorefraction: influence of two different target types.
    Rubin A; Gillan WD
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1997 Jan; 17(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 9135811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Repeatability and validity of the PowerRefractor and the Nidek AR600-A in an adult population with healthy eyes.
    Allen PM; Radhakrishnan H; O'Leary DJ
    Optom Vis Sci; 2003 Mar; 80(3):245-51. PubMed ID: 12637836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Population-based assessment of sensitivity and specificity of a pinhole for detection of significant refractive errors in the community.
    Marmamula S; Keeffe JE; Narsaiah S; Khanna RC; Rao GN
    Clin Exp Optom; 2014 Nov; 97(6):523-7. PubMed ID: 24909916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Trial frame refraction versus autorefraction among new patients in a low-vision clinic.
    DeCarlo DK; McGwin G; Searcey K; Gao L; Snow M; Waterbor J; Owsley C
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2013 Jan; 54(1):19-24. PubMed ID: 23188726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Refractive variation under accommodative demand: curvital and scaled torsional variances and covariance across the meridians of the eye.
    van Gool RD; Harris WF
    Optom Vis Sci; 1997 Jun; 74(6):445-51. PubMed ID: 9255825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of refractive assessment by wavefront aberrometry, autorefraction, and subjective refraction.
    Bennett JR; Stalboerger GM; Hodge DO; Schornack MM
    J Optom; 2015; 8(2):109-15. PubMed ID: 25498534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Repeatability of autorefraction and axial length measurements after laser in situ keratomileusis.
    Bailey MD; Twa MD; Mitchell GL; Dhaliwal DK; Jones LA; McMahon TT
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2005 May; 31(5):1025-34. PubMed ID: 15975474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Refraction in children: a comparison of two methods of accommodation control.
    Hopkins S; Sampson GP; Hendicott P; Lacherez P; Wood JM
    Optom Vis Sci; 2012 Dec; 89(12):1734-9. PubMed ID: 23142881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of refractive error measures by the IRX3 aberrometer and autorefraction.
    McCullough SJ; Little JA; Breslin KM; Saunders KJ
    Optom Vis Sci; 2014 Oct; 91(10):1183-90. PubMed ID: 25192432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children.
    Harvey EM; Miller JM; Wagner LK; Dobson V
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1997 Nov; 81(11):941-8. PubMed ID: 9505815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Principles of modern determination of refraction].
    Krause K
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1989 May; 194(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 2664321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Influence of fogging lenses and cycloplegia on open-field automatic refraction.
    Queirós A; González-Méijome J; Jorge J
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2008 Jul; 28(4):387-92. PubMed ID: 18565095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Testing hypotheses on dioptric power.
    Harris WF
    Optom Vis Sci; 1992 Nov; 69(11):835-45. PubMed ID: 1454300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.