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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9778697)

  • 1. Evaluation of the EyeSys model II computerized videokeratoscope. Part I: Clinical assessment.
    Dave T; Ruston D; Fowler C
    Optom Vis Sci; 1998 Sep; 75(9):647-55. PubMed ID: 9778697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Intraoperative PAR corneal topography system (CTS): comparison of its keratometric readings to manual keratometer, auto-keratometer, EyeSys Corneal Analysis system, and slit lamp PAR CTS in healthy eyes.
    Uçakhan OO; Sternberg G; Bodian C; Kelliher K; Asbell PA
    CLAO J; 2000 Jul; 26(3):151-8. PubMed ID: 10946987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of three computerized videokeratoscopy systems with keratometry.
    Moura RC; Bowyer BL; Stevens SX; Rowsey JJ
    Cornea; 1998 Sep; 17(5):522-8. PubMed ID: 9756447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Repeatability and inter-device agreement for three different methods of keratometry: Placido, Scheimpflug, and color LED corneal topography.
    Hidalgo IR; Rozema JJ; Dhubhghaill SN; Zakaria N; Koppen C; Tassignon MJ
    J Refract Surg; 2015 Mar; 31(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 25751834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of repeat videokeratography: repeatability and accuracy.
    Jeandervin M; Barr J
    Optom Vis Sci; 1998 Sep; 75(9):663-9. PubMed ID: 9778699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the EyeSys model II computerized videokeratoscope. Part II: The repeatability and accuracy in measuring convex aspheric surfaces.
    Dave T; Ruston D; Fowler C
    Optom Vis Sci; 1998 Sep; 75(9):656-62. PubMed ID: 9778698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy and precision of EyeSys and Orbscan systems on calibrated spherical test surfaces.
    González Pérez J; Cerviño A; Giraldez MJ; Parafita M; Yebra-Pimentel E
    Eye Contact Lens; 2004 Apr; 30(2):74-8. PubMed ID: 15260351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Corneal topography by keratometry.
    Douthwaite WA; Evardson WT
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2000 Aug; 84(8):842-7. PubMed ID: 10906088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of the accuracy and reproducibility of the keratometer and the EyeSys Corneal Analysis System Model I.
    Koch DD; Wakil JS; Samuelson SW; Haft EA
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1992 Jul; 18(4):342-7. PubMed ID: 1501084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Keratometry with five different techniques: a study of device repeatability and inter-device agreement.
    Mehravaran S; Asgari S; Bigdeli S; Shahnazi A; Hashemi H
    Int Ophthalmol; 2014 Aug; 34(4):869-75. PubMed ID: 24562593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cornea measurement comparison with Orbscan II and EyeSys videokeratoscope.
    Douthwaite WA; Mallen EA
    Optom Vis Sci; 2007 Jul; 84(7):598-604. PubMed ID: 17632308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Short-term repeatability of hand-held keratometry measurements.
    Shin JA; Manny RE; Kleinstein RN; Mutti DO; Zadnik K
    Optom Vis Sci; 1999 Apr; 76(4):247-53. PubMed ID: 10333188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of videokeratoscope and autokeratometer measurements on ellipsoid surfaces and human corneas.
    Pardhan S; Douthwaite WA
    J Refract Surg; 1998; 14(4):414-9. PubMed ID: 9699165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comprehensive assessment of the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements obtained using 8 different devices.
    Wang Q; Savini G; Hoffer KJ; Xu Z; Feng Y; Wen D; Hua Y; Yang F; Pan C; Huang J
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e45607. PubMed ID: 23049823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Repeatability and comparability of automated keratometry: the Nikon NRK-8000, the Nidek KM-800 and the Bausch and Lomb keratometer.
    Elliott M; Simpson T; Richter D; Fonn D
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1998 May; 18(3):285-93. PubMed ID: 9829116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of keratoconus grades on repeatability of keratometry readings: Comparison of 5 devices.
    Hashemi H; Yekta A; Khabazkhoob M
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 2015 May; 41(5):1065-72. PubMed ID: 26049838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of keratometric values of healthy and diseased eyes measured by Javal keratometer, EyeSys, and PAR.
    Varssano D; Rapuano CJ; Luchs JI
    J Cataract Refract Surg; 1997 Apr; 23(3):419-22. PubMed ID: 9159687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An evaluation of keratometry in 6-year-old children.
    Huynh SC; Mai TQ; Kifley A; Wang JJ; Rose KA; Mitchell P
    Cornea; 2006 May; 25(4):383-7. PubMed ID: 16670473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of different keratometers with the EyeSys videokeratoscope.
    Vámosi P; Sohajda Z; Módis L; Vámosi G; Berta A
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 1998 Apr; 76(2):158-64. PubMed ID: 9591945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Corneal power measurements in fixating versus anesthetized nonfixating children using a handheld keratometer.
    Rogers DL; Whitehead GR; Stephens JA; Fellows RR; Bremer DL; McGregor ML; Golden RP; Cassady CB; Rogers GL
    J AAPOS; 2010 Feb; 14(1):11-4. PubMed ID: 20227615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.