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.
244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8768473)
21. Effect of letter separation on computerised visual acuity measurements: comparison with the gold standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Shah N; Laidlaw DA; Brown G; Robson C Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2010 Mar; 30(2):200-3. PubMed ID: 20444125 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Comparison of the Lithander (Kolt test) pediatric visual acuity test with the standardized Landolt ring test]. Cavazos H; Schulz E; Rassow B; Wesemann W Klin Monbl Augenheilkd; 1990 Oct; 197(4):324-8. PubMed ID: 2280568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effect of scoring and termination rules on test-retest variability of a novel high-pass letter acuity chart. Shah N; Dakin SC; Whitaker HL; Anderson RS Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Mar; 55(3):1386-92. PubMed ID: 24519424 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The practical near acuity chart (PNAC) and prediction of visual ability at near. Wolffsohn JS; Cochrane AL Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2000 Mar; 20(2):90-7. PubMed ID: 10829130 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Differences between recognition and resolution acuity in patients undergoing macular hole surgery. Wittich W; Overbury O; Kapusta MA; Watanabe DH Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Aug; 47(8):3690-4. PubMed ID: 16877444 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of visual acuity levels in pediatric patients with amblyopia using Wright figures, Allen optotypes, and Snellen letters. Mocan MC; Najera-Covarrubias M; Wright KW J AAPOS; 2005 Feb; 9(1):48-52. PubMed ID: 15729280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Improving the reliability of visual acuity measures in young children. McGraw PV; Winn B; Gray LS; Elliott DB Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2000 May; 20(3):173-84. PubMed ID: 10897339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. New visual acuity chart for patients with macular hole. Horiguchi M; Suzuki H; Kojima Y; Shimada Y Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2001 Nov; 42(12):2765-8. PubMed ID: 11687515 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Relative legibility study using Chinese optotypes. Cheng AS Singapore Med J; 1991 Feb; 32(1):38-40. PubMed ID: 2017704 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Validation of a computerised logMAR visual acuity measurement system (COMPlog): comparison with ETDRS and the electronic ETDRS testing algorithm in adults and amblyopic children. Laidlaw DA; Tailor V; Shah N; Atamian S; Harcourt C Br J Ophthalmol; 2008 Feb; 92(2):241-4. PubMed ID: 17993577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Evaluating a new logMAR chart designed to improve visual acuity assessment in population-based surveys. Bourne RR; Rosser DA; Sukudom P; Dineen B; Laidlaw DA; Johnson GJ; Murdoch IE Eye (Lond); 2003 Aug; 17(6):754-8. PubMed ID: 12928690 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Correlation of optotypes with the Landolt ring--a fresh look at the comparability of optotypes. Grimm W; Rassow B; Wesemann W; Saur K; Hilz R Optom Vis Sci; 1994 Jan; 71(1):6-13. PubMed ID: 8146001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of near visual acuity and reading metrics in presbyopia correction. Gupta N; Wolffsohn JS; Naroo SA J Cataract Refract Surg; 2009 Aug; 35(8):1401-9. PubMed ID: 19631128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]