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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8515969)

  • 1. Influence of soft contact lens design on clinical performance.
    Young G; Holden B; Cooke G
    Optom Vis Sci; 1993 May; 70(5):394-403. PubMed ID: 8515969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical comparison of optimum and large diameter soft contact lenses.
    Wolffsohn J; Hall L; Young G
    Cont Lens Anterior Eye; 2018 Oct; 41(5):405-411. PubMed ID: 29739665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of hydrogel lens wear on contrast sensitivity.
    Nowozyckyj A; Carney LG; Efron N
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1988 Apr; 65(4):263-71. PubMed ID: 3377059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optical and visual performance of aspheric soft contact lenses.
    Efron S; Efron N; Morgan PB
    Optom Vis Sci; 2008 Mar; 85(3):201-10. PubMed ID: 18317336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A 1-year prospective clinical trial of balafilcon a (PureVision) silicone-hydrogel contact lenses used on a 30-day continuous wear schedule.
    Brennan NA; Coles ML; Comstock TL; Levy B
    Ophthalmology; 2002 Jun; 109(6):1172-7. PubMed ID: 12045062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Determinants of the initial comfort of hydrogel contact lenses.
    Efron N; Brennan NA; Currie JM; Fitzgerald JP; Hughes MT
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1986 Oct; 63(10):819-23. PubMed ID: 3535525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of a new system of lens parameter selection and comparison of traditional vs one-step lens care systems for aspheric high-Dk RGP contact lenses.
    de Brabander J; Kok JH; Nuijts RM
    CLAO J; 2000 Oct; 26(4):193-9. PubMed ID: 11071343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Impact of contact lens material and design on the ocular surface.
    Ruiz-Alcocer J; Monsálvez-Romín D; García-Lázaro S; Albarrán-Diego C; Hernández-Verdejo JL; Madrid-Costa D
    Clin Exp Optom; 2018 Mar; 101(2):188-192. PubMed ID: 29023989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Flexure effects of double-thin zone toric soft contact lenses.
    Weissman BA; Gardner KM
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1984 Jul; 61(7):465-8. PubMed ID: 6465278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparing the optical properties of soft contact lenses on and off the eye.
    Kollbaum PS; Bradley A; Thibos LN
    Optom Vis Sci; 2013 Sep; 90(9):924-36. PubMed ID: 23969894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Blink-induced variations in visual performance with toric soft contact lenses.
    Tomlinson A; Ridder WH; Watanabe R
    Optom Vis Sci; 1994 Sep; 71(9):545-9. PubMed ID: 7816424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Soft lens movement: temporal characteristics.
    Brennan NA; Lindsay RG; McCraw K; Young L; Bruce AS; Golding TR
    Optom Vis Sci; 1994 Jun; 71(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 8090437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Consequences of wear interruption for discomfort with contact lenses.
    Papas EB; Tilia D; Tomlinson D; Williams J; Chan E; Chan J; Golebiowski B
    Optom Vis Sci; 2014 Jan; 91(1):24-31. PubMed ID: 24141634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Descriptive analysis of the type and design of contact lenses fitted according to keratoconus severity and morphology.
    Lunardi LH; Arroyo D; Andrade Sobrinho MV; Lipener C; Rosa JM
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2016 Apr; 79(2):82-4. PubMed ID: 27224068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comfort response of three silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lenses.
    Varikooty J; Keir N; Richter D; Jones LW; Woods C; Fonn D
    Optom Vis Sci; 2013 Sep; 90(9):945-53. PubMed ID: 23892493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Randomized Crossover Trial of Silicone Hydrogel Presbyopic Contact Lenses.
    Sivardeen A; Laughton D; Wolffsohn JS
    Optom Vis Sci; 2016 Feb; 93(2):141-9. PubMed ID: 26704141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Which soft lens power is better for piggyback in keratoconus? Part II.
    Romero-Jiménez M; Santodomingo-Rubido J; González-Meijóme JM; Flores-Rodriguez P; Villa-Collar C
    Cont Lens Anterior Eye; 2015 Feb; 38(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 25458076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison by contact lens cytology and clinical tests of three contact lens types.
    Wilson G; Schwallie JD; Bauman RE
    Optom Vis Sci; 1998 May; 75(5):323-9. PubMed ID: 9624696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of factors influencing toric soft contact lens fit.
    Young G; Hunt C; Covey M
    Optom Vis Sci; 2002 Jan; 79(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 11828894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparative study of biweekly disposable contact lenses: silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel.
    Cheung SW; Cho P; Chan B; Choy C; Ng V
    Clin Exp Optom; 2007 Mar; 90(2):124-31. PubMed ID: 17311574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.