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 *

266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8336909)

  • 1. Effects of target distance and pupil size on letter contrast sensitivity with simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses.
    Bradley A; Abdul Rahman H; Soni PS; Zhang X
    Optom Vis Sci; 1993 Jun; 70(6):476-81. PubMed ID: 8336909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visual function through 4 contact lens-based pinhole systems for presbyopia.
    García-Lázaro S; Ferrer-Blasco T; Radhakrishnan H; Cerviño A; Charman WN; Montés-Micó R
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2012 May; 38(5):858-65. PubMed ID: 22424803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Subjective and objective assessment of soft bifocal contact lens performance.
    Bullimore MA; Jacobs RJ
    Optom Vis Sci; 1993 Jun; 70(6):469-75. PubMed ID: 8336908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contrast sensitivity measurements with the Echelon diffractive bifocal contact lens as compared to bifocal spectacles.
    Sanislo S; Wicker D; Green DG
    CLAO J; 1992 Jul; 18(3):161-4. PubMed ID: 1499121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Contrast visual acuity with bifocal contact lenses.
    Ueda K; Inagaki Y
    Eye Contact Lens; 2007 Mar; 33(2):98-102. PubMed ID: 17496703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of age, decentration, aberrations and pupil size on subjective image quality with concentric bifocal optics.
    Rio D; Woog K; Legras R
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2016 Jul; 36(4):411-20. PubMed ID: 27196105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of contrast acuity and defocus curve in bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses.
    Knorz MC; Claessens D; Schaefer RC; Seiberth V; Liesenhoff H
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1993 Jul; 19(4):513-23. PubMed ID: 8355159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Predicting and assessing visual performance with multizone bifocal contact lenses.
    Martin JA; Roorda A
    Optom Vis Sci; 2003 Dec; 80(12):812-9. PubMed ID: 14688544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Successful monovision contact lens wearers refitted with bifocal contact lenses.
    Situ P; Du Toit R; Fonn D; Simpson T
    Eye Contact Lens; 2003 Jul; 29(3):181-4. PubMed ID: 12861114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Impact of Spherical Aberration Terms on Multifocal Contact Lens Performance.
    Fedtke C; Sha J; Thomas V; Ehrmann K; Bakaraju RC
    Optom Vis Sci; 2017 Feb; 94(2):197-207. PubMed ID: 27879499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections.
    Back A; Grant T; Hine N
    Optom Vis Sci; 1992 Jun; 69(6):474-80. PubMed ID: 1641231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Is binocular contrast sensitivity at distance compromised with multifocal soft contact lenses used to correct presbyopia?
    Soni PS; Patel R; Carlson RS
    Optom Vis Sci; 2003 Jul; 80(7):505-14. PubMed ID: 12858086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical experience with the SimulVue soft bifocal contact lens.
    Bierly JR; Furgason TG; Litteral G; VanMeter WS
    CLAO J; 1995 Apr; 21(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 7796528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Short-term comparison between extended depth-of-focus prototype contact lenses and a commercially-available center-near multifocal.
    Tilia D; Munro A; Chung J; Sha J; Delaney S; Kho D; Thomas V; Ehrmann K; Bakaraju RC
    J Optom; 2017; 10(1):14-25. PubMed ID: 27161603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of suppression, stereoacuity, and interocular differences in visual acuity in monovision and acuvue bifocal contact lenses.
    Kirschen DG; Hung CC; Nakano TR
    Optom Vis Sci; 1999 Dec; 76(12):832-7. PubMed ID: 10612404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optical quality of rotationally symmetrical contact lenses derived from their power profiles.
    Del Águila-Carrasco AJ; Monsálvez-Romín D; Papadatou E
    Cont Lens Anterior Eye; 2017 Oct; 40(5):346-350. PubMed ID: 28522252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Simulated in situ optical performance of bifocal contact lenses.
    Chateau N; Baude D
    Optom Vis Sci; 1997 Jul; 74(7):532-9. PubMed ID: 9293522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The effect of different monovision contact lens powers on the visual function of emmetropic presbyopic patients (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).
    Durrie DS
    Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc; 2006; 104():366-401. PubMed ID: 17471352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Artificial pupil versus contralateral balanced contact lens fit for presbyopia correction.
    García-Lázaro S; Ferrer-Blasco T; Radhakrishnan H; Albarrán-Diego C; Montés-Micó R
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2014 Apr; 77(2):76-80. PubMed ID: 25076468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.