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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8325411)

  • 1. A comparison of flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian Allen, JET, C-glide, gold foil, DTL and skin electrodes.
    Esakowitz L; Kriss A; Shawkat F
    Eye (Lond); 1993; 7 ( Pt 1)():169-71. PubMed ID: 8325411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The repeatability and variability of the multifocal electroretinogram for four different electrodes.
    Mohidin N; Yap MK; Jacobs RJ
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1997 Nov; 17(6):530-5. PubMed ID: 9666928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Amplitude scaling relationships of Burian-Allen, gold foil and Dawson, Trick and Litzkow electrodes.
    Hennessy MP; Vaegan
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1995; 89(3):235-48. PubMed ID: 7555591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of performance and patient satisfaction of two types of ERG electrodes.
    Beeler P; Barthelmes D; Sutter FK; Helbig H; Fleischhauer JC
    Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 2007 Apr; 224(4):265-8. PubMed ID: 17458789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of different recording parameters to establish a standard for flash electroretinography in rodents.
    Bayer AU; Cook P; Brodie SE; Maag KP; Mittag T
    Vision Res; 2001 Aug; 41(17):2173-85. PubMed ID: 11448710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An electrical artifact associated with the ERG-jet gold foil electrode.
    Gehlbach PL; Purple RL
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Jul; 34(8):2596-9. PubMed ID: 8325761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparisons of contact lens, foil, fiber and skin electrodes for patterns electroretinograms.
    McCulloch DL; Van Boemel GB; Borchert MS
    Doc Ophthalmol; 1997-1998; 94(4):327-40. PubMed ID: 9858093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validation of a new fiber electrode prototype for clinical electroretinography.
    Berezovsky A; Pereira JM; Salomão SR; Santos VR; Schor P
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2008; 71(3):316-20. PubMed ID: 18641814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Flash electroretinography in standing horses using the DTL microfiber electrode.
    Komáromy AM; Andrew SE; Sapp HL; Brooks DE; Dawson WW
    Vet Ophthalmol; 2003 Mar; 6(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 12641840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Comparison between subtraction skin electrodes and corneal-contact electrodes in flash electroretinograms].
    Kaid T; Matsunag M; Hanaya J; Nakamura Y; Ohtani S; Miyat K; Kondo M
    Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi; 2013 Jan; 117(1):5-11. PubMed ID: 23424970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing DTL microfiber and Neuroline skin electrode in the Mini Ganzfeld ERG.
    Lapkovska A; Palmowski-Wolfe AM; Todorova MG
    BMC Ophthalmol; 2016 Aug; 16():137. PubMed ID: 27491453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Improved electrode for electroretinography.
    Dawson WW; Trick GL; Litzkow CA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1979 Sep; 18(9):988-91. PubMed ID: 478786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Electrodes for electroretinography. A comparison of four different types.
    Gjötterberg M
    Arch Ophthalmol; 1986 Apr; 104(4):569-70. PubMed ID: 3954663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of ERGs recorded with skin and corneal-contact electrodes in normal children and adults.
    Bradshaw K; Hansen R; Fulton A
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2004 Jul; 109(1):43-55. PubMed ID: 15675199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Multifocal ERG using ERG-jet and Gold Foil electrodes in normal subjects: comparison and reproducibility].
    Thimonier C; Daubas P; Bourdon L; Deral-Stephant V; Menu JP; Vignal R; Roux C
    J Fr Ophtalmol; 2008 Jun; 31(6 Pt 1):585-90. PubMed ID: 18772809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy and results of photopic flash electroretinogram performed with skin electrodes in infants.
    Bui Quoc E; Albuisson E; Ingster-Moati I
    Eur J Ophthalmol; 2012; 22(3):441-9. PubMed ID: 21748726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Skin ERGs: their effectiveness in paediatric visual assessment, confounding factors, and comparison with ERGs recorded using various types of corneal electrode.
    Kriss A
    Int J Psychophysiol; 1994 May; 16(2-3):137-46. PubMed ID: 8089032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The DTL ERG electrode comes in different shapes and sizes: Are they all good?
    Woo J; Jung S; Gauvin M; Lachapelle P
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2017 Oct; 135(2):155-164. PubMed ID: 28741115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quantitative relationship of the scotopic and photopic ERG to photoreceptor cell loss in light damaged rats.
    Sugawara T; Sieving PA; Bush RA
    Exp Eye Res; 2000 May; 70(5):693-705. PubMed ID: 10870528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of recording electrode type and reference electrode position on the canine electroretinogram.
    Mentzer AE; Eifler DM; Montiani-Ferreira F; Tuntivanich N; Forcier JQ; Petersen-Jones SM
    Doc Ophthalmol; 2005 Sep; 111(2):95-106. PubMed ID: 16514491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.