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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7852704)

  • 1. A forced choice procedure for evaluation of contrast sensitivity function in preschool children.
    Richman JE; Lyons S
    J Am Optom Assoc; 1994 Dec; 65(12):859-64. PubMed ID: 7852704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual contrast sensitivity deficits in Bohemian children.
    Hudnell HK; Skalik I; Otto D; House D; Subrt P; Sram R
    Neurotoxicology; 1996; 17(3-4):615-28. PubMed ID: 9086482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of visual impairment on measures of cognitive function for children with congenital toxoplasmosis: implications for compensatory intervention strategies.
    Roizen N; Kasza K; Karrison T; Mets M; Noble AG; Boyer K; Swisher C; Meier P; Remington J; Jalbrzikowski J; McLeod R; Kipp M; Rabiah P; Chamot D; Estes R; Cezar S; Mack D; Pfiffner L; Stein M; Danis B; Patel D; Hopkins J; Holfels E; Stein L; Withers S; Cameron A; Perkins J; Heydemann P
    Pediatrics; 2006 Aug; 118(2):e379-90. PubMed ID: 16864640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Treated amblyopes remain deficient in spatial vision: a contrast sensitivity and external noise study.
    Huang C; Tao L; Zhou Y; Lu ZL
    Vision Res; 2007 Jan; 47(1):22-34. PubMed ID: 17098275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry.
    Johnson CA; Samuels SJ
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1997 Feb; 38(2):413-25. PubMed ID: 9040475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Normative contrast sensitivity values for the back-lit Melbourne Edge Test and the effect of visual impairment.
    Eperjesi F; Wolffsohn J; Bowden J; Napper G; Rubinstein M
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2004 Nov; 24(6):600-6. PubMed ID: 15491489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses.
    Rajagopalan AS; Bennett ES; Lakshminarayanan V
    Optom Vis Sci; 2006 Aug; 83(8):611-5. PubMed ID: 16909087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study.
    Schmidt P; Maguire M; Dobson V; Quinn G; Ciner E; Cyert L; Kulp MT; Moore B; Orel-Bixler D; Redford M; Ying GS;
    Ophthalmology; 2004 Apr; 111(4):637-50. PubMed ID: 15051194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population: the Beaver Dam eye study.
    Klein BE; Moss SE; Klein R; Lee KE; Cruickshanks KJ
    Ophthalmology; 2003 Apr; 110(4):644-50. PubMed ID: 12689880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Relationship between optokinetic nystagmus response and recognition visual acuity.
    Cetinkaya A; Oto S; Akman A; Akova YA
    Eye (Lond); 2008 Jan; 22(1):77-81. PubMed ID: 16902492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measuring contrast sensitivity with inappropriate optical correction.
    Woods RL; Strang NC; Atchison DA
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2000 Nov; 20(6):442-51. PubMed ID: 11127124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. VISTECH contrast sensitivity testing in primary open angle glaucoma.
    Mathai A; Thomas R; Braganza A; Maharajan S; George T; Muliyil J
    Indian J Ophthalmol; 1997 Jun; 45(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 9475027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions.
    Montés-Micó R; España E; Bueno I; Charman WN; Menezo JL
    Ophthalmology; 2004 Jan; 111(1):85-96. PubMed ID: 14711718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of the contrast sensitivity card test for infants: retest variability and prediction of spatial resolution.
    Drover JR; Courage ML; Dalton SM; Adams RJ
    Optom Vis Sci; 2006 Apr; 83(4):228-32. PubMed ID: 16614578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sensitivity and specificity of the 76-suprathreshold visual field test to detect eyes with visual field defect by Humphrey threshold testing in a population-based setting: the Thessaloniki eye study.
    Topouzis F; Coleman AL; Yu F; Mavroudis L; Anastasopoulos E; Koskosas A; Pappas T; Dimitrakos S; Wilson MR
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2004 Mar; 137(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 15013863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Screening of vision disorders in young children].
    Sansonetti A; Périsset J; Reinhardt M;
    Rev Med Suisse Romande; 2004 Aug; 124(8):514-6. PubMed ID: 15495478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Selective broad-band spatial frequency loss in contrast sensitivity functions. Comparison with a model based on optical transfer functions.
    Bour LJ; Apkarian P
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1996 Nov; 37(12):2475-84. PubMed ID: 8933764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The validity of current clinical tests of contrast sensitivity and their ability to predict reading speed in low vision.
    Leat SJ; Woo GC
    Eye (Lond); 1997; 11 ( Pt 6)():893-9. PubMed ID: 9537154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population.
    Becker K; Semes L
    Optometry; 2003 Mar; 74(3):173-9. PubMed ID: 12645850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [The evaluation of contrast sensitivity in children and adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus].
    Urban B; Bakunowicz-Lazarczyk A; Peczyńska J; Urban M
    Klin Oczna; 1999; 101(2):111-4. PubMed ID: 10418234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.