Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.4103/2008-322X.188392 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.4103/2008-322X.188392 C5000524!5000524!27621779     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 278.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 278.79999999999995 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       J+Ophthalmic+Vis+Res 2016 ; 11 (3): 245-51 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27621779|t=2016. Central Corneal Thickness Measurement Using Ultrasonic Pachymetry, Rotating Scheimpflug Camera, and Scanning-slit Topography Exclusively in Thin Non-keratoconic Corneas |pdf=|usr=}}{{27621779}} gab.com Text Central Corneal Thickness Measurement Using Ultrasonic Pachymetry, Rotating Scheimpflug Camera, and Scanning-slit Topography Exclusively in Thin Non-keratoconic Corneas JO: J Ophthalmic Vis Res http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27621779 #FOAvip Purpose:: To evaluate the agreement among Pentacam, Orbscan and ultrasound (US) pachymetry for measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) in thin corneas with normal topographic pattern. Methods:: We included 88 eyes of 44 refractive surgery candidates with thinnest pachymetric readings of 500 micrometers (?m) or less on Orbscan, a normal topographic pattern, no sign of keratoconus, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20. Pentacam, Orbscan and US were performed in one session by the same examiner. Exclusion criteria were history of ocular surgery, topographic abnormalities suggesting forme fruste keratoconus or keratectasia, and recent contact lens wear. Results:: The difference in CCT measurements by US pachymetry and Orbscan II [using an acoustic factor (AF) of 0.92] ranged from ?34 to +34 ?m. The difference between the thinnest point and central readings measured by US reached 16 ?m with Orbscan II (AF: 0.92) and 2 ?m with Pentacam. Mean differences between the employed devices were 0.2 ?m for Pentacam versus US (P = 0.727), 30.1 ?m for uncorrected Orbscan versus US (P < 0.001), 10.4 ?m for Orbscan II (AF = 0.92) versus US (P < 0.001), and 0.2 ?m for Orbscan II (AF = 0.94) versus US (P = 0.851). Conclusion:: In normal thin corneas, Pentacam demonstrated better agreement with US pachymetry as compared to corrected Orbscan readings. Results achieved by Orbscan were better consistent with US pachymetry using an AF of 0.94. We speculate that a dynamically graded AF in reverse proportion to CCT constitutes a better approach for correcting Orbscan measurements. Twit Text FOAVip Central Corneal Thickness Measurement Using Ultrasonic Pachymetry, Rotating Scheimpflug Camera, and Scanning-slit Topography Exclusively in Thin Non-keratoconic Corneas ????J Ophthalmic Vis Res http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27621779 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27621779 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27621779}}</ref> Central Corneal Thickness Measurement Using Ultrasonic Pachymetry, Rotating Scheimpflug Camera, and Scanning-slit Topography Exclusively in Thin Non-keratoconic Corneas #MMPMID27621779 Mohammadpour M; Mohammad K; Karimi N J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2016[Jul]; 11 (3): 245-51 PMID27621779show ga Purpose:: To evaluate the agreement among Pentacam, Orbscan and ultrasound (US) pachymetry for measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) in thin corneas with normal topographic pattern. Methods:: We included 88 eyes of 44 refractive surgery candidates with thinnest pachymetric readings of 500 micrometers (?m) or less on Orbscan, a normal topographic pattern, no sign of keratoconus, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20. Pentacam, Orbscan and US were performed in one session by the same examiner. Exclusion criteria were history of ocular surgery, topographic abnormalities suggesting forme fruste keratoconus or keratectasia, and recent contact lens wear. Results:: The difference in CCT measurements by US pachymetry and Orbscan II [using an acoustic factor (AF) of 0.92] ranged from ?34 to +34 ?m. The difference between the thinnest point and central readings measured by US reached 16 ?m with Orbscan II (AF: 0.92) and 2 ?m with Pentacam. Mean differences between the employed devices were 0.2 ?m for Pentacam versus US (P = 0.727), 30.1 ?m for uncorrected Orbscan versus US (P < 0.001), 10.4 ?m for Orbscan II (AF = 0.92) versus US (P < 0.001), and 0.2 ?m for Orbscan II (AF = 0.94) versus US (P = 0.851). Conclusion:: In normal thin corneas, Pentacam demonstrated better agreement with US pachymetry as compared to corrected Orbscan readings. Results achieved by Orbscan were better consistent with US pachymetry using an AF of 0.94. We speculate that a dynamically graded AF in reverse proportion to CCT constitutes a better approach for correcting Orbscan measurements. äCentral Corneal Thickness Measurement Using Ultrasonic Pachymetry, Rot(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing