ライフサイエンスコーパス: spectacle

1 eady-made (n = 232) or custom-made (n = 228) spectacles.

2 ate knowledge and favorable attitude towards spectacles.

3 se of suboptimal UCDVA and need for distance spectacles.

4 en in the observation group who did not need spectacles.

5 95 % CI 1.20-6.50) had good knowledge about spectacles.

6 lated to eye diseases is not reversible with spectacles.

7 red after discontinuation of the use of near spectacles.

8 e addition lenses) or single-distance vision spectacles.

9 tifocal compared with single-distance vision spectacles.

10 were randomized to ready-made or custom-made spectacles.

11 p that was nullified with vertical prisms in spectacles.

12 .4 [1.3] years) were eligible for ready-made spectacles (2.0% undergoing screening and 86.0% undergoi

13 Children were randomly assigned to overminus spectacles (-2.50 D over cycloplegic refraction) or obse

14 ine [LogMAR 0], while 7.9% presented wearing spectacles, 3.8% had impaired colour vision, 1.5% had gr

15 hat it is possible to achieve high levels of spectacle adherence among 4-year-old children after unil

16 Spectacle adherence did not correlate with sex, type of

17 cted every 3 months to age 5 years to assess spectacle adherence with impact-resistant lenses.

18 ed vision in their treated eye reported <10% spectacle adherence.

19 majority of PNVI is likely correctable with spectacles, allocation of resources to provide correctiv

20 rable to those of more expensive custom-made spectacles among eligible school-aged children.

21 corneal curvature, and axial length between spectacle and contact lens wearers.

22 In contrast to previous studies, spectacled and Burmeister's porpoises shared a more rece

23 rn (harbor and Dall's) and southern species (spectacled and Burmeister's).

24 Cryptic lineages within Dall's, spectacled and Pacific harbor porpoises suggest a richer

25 %) participants had adequate knowledge about spectacles and 90.4 % had favorable attitude towards spe

26 problems some older adults have with updated spectacles and after cataract surgery.

27 y options for patients who are intolerant of spectacles and contact lenses.

28 er from aniseikonia and can be intolerant of spectacles and contact lenses.

29 Owls were fitted with prismatic or control spectacles and provided rich auditory-visual experience:

30 Most children were eligible for ready-made spectacles, and the proportion wearing ready-made specta

31 Ready-made spectacles are suitable for the majority of individuals

32 Spectacles are the most frequently used options for corr

33 When this bias relaxes after reading spectacles are worn, there is a hyperopic shift of the r

34 ferior to the proportion wearing custom-made spectacles at 3 to 4 months.

35 th 54.5% for patients who received hyperopic spectacles at 6 month or later after esotropia onset (p

36 Proportion of children wearing their spectacles at unannounced visits 3 to 4 months after the

37 Additional details about spectacles, barriers for their use and willingness to pa

38 d no preference for sweet compounds, but the spectacled bear (intact Tas1r2) did.

39 Each received monovision spectacles, contact lenses, or both with distance correc

40 ng the follow-up of included uncorrected and spectacle corrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA/CDVA),

41 For spectacle corrected measurements, RA was significantly l

42 Presenting visual acuity consisted of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and hard conta

43 Clinical outcome parameters included best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), central corne

44 itute Visual Functioning Questionnaire; best spectacle-corrected and uncorrected visual acuities were

45 orrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), best spectacle-corrected VA (BSCVA), manifest refractive sphe

46 In all eyes, the mean postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (0.13 +/- 0.17 logMAR)

47 The mean postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BCVA in decimal equiv

48 Primary outcome measure was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) 3 months after

49 Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) after DMEK was

50 The primary outcomes were change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and change in

51 toperative quality of vision, including best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and contrast s

52 Outcome measures included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and endothelia

53 ain outcome measures were postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and endothelia

54 ared; correlation was performed between best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and HOA at eac

55 The outcomes examined were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and scar size

56 Secondary outcomes included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 weeks and

57 The primary outcome of the trial was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 6 months.

58 Mean best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at presentatio

59 Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) results were r

60 toperative visual acuity, postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was measured a

61 as determined by slit-lamp examination; best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was measured u

62 Postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was recorded a

63 e relationships between DSEK timing and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) while accounti

64 Our main outcome measures were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) with astigmati

65 We assessed 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), 3-month infil

66 g tomographies, endothelium cell count, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and anterior

67 0 mm), central corneal thickness (CCT), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and endotheli

68 ent, rebubbling, rejection and failure, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and endotheli

69 ism, and treatment on outcomes, 3-month best-spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and infiltrat

70 Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and topograph

71 urgery (mean follow-up, 21+/-7 months), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), best contact

72 Incidence of graft rejection, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), central corne

73 ystrophy at a tertiary referral center, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), corneal HOAs,

74 me measures in DMEK recipients included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial c

75 graft preparation and unfolding times, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial c

76 easurements in DMEK recipients included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial c

77 Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), manifest refr

78 T-DSAEK or DSAEK, based on preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), recipient cen

79 Outcome measures included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), refraction, a

80 Outcome measures were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), refractive as

81 type of pneumatic dissection obtained; best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), refractive as

82 Safety measures included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), slit-lamp and

83 Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), sphere and cy

84 tcome measures, including postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), spherical equ

85 near mixed model analyses were used for best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), spherical equ

86 luded uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), subjective ma

87 tailed ophthalmic examinations included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), tear film pro

88 We evaluated best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), topography, r

89 rected distance visual acuity (UDVA) or best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA).

90 Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA; in logarithm o

91 um angle of resolution [logMAR] units), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA; measured in lo

92 l of inflammation (P = 0.44), change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (P = 0.68), or resolut

93 lment showed significant improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 3 months if cortico

94 The primary outcome was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 3 months; secondary

95 Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity did not differ signifi

96 corticosteroids (vs placebo) on 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity in patients who receiv

97 cases had significantly better 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity than voriconazole-trea

98 Preoperative spectacle-corrected visual acuity was </=20/200 in 8 pat

99 erative follow-up of 6 months (n = 20), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity was 20/25 or better an

100 surgery, in 26 (83.8%) of 31 patients, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity was 20/40 or better wi

101 The outcome of 3-week best spectacle-corrected visual acuity was significantly asso

102 s in PCT at the 12-o'clock position and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity were not significantly

103 Improvements in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity were used to calculate

104 The mean gain in visual acuity (lens vs spectacle-corrected visual acuity) was 0.54 +/- 0.18 (de

105 s included rate of reepithelialization, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, and infiltrate or sca

106 Visits included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, anterior segment opti

107 Outcomes included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, infiltrate/scar size,

108 chment/rebubble, endothelial cell loss, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure,

109 ring control of inflammation, change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, resolution of macular

110 rium species and adjusting for baseline best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, the natamycin-treated

111 The primary outcome was 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity.

112 at culture analysis; 3-week and 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity; infiltrate or scar si

113 more common in the fungal ulcer group after spectacle correction (odds ratio [OR] 4.19; 95% confiden

114 ectacle wear if needed (n = 69) or continued spectacle correction alone if needed (n = 69).

115 lusion thus provided no further benefit over spectacle correction alone.

116 5% CI: 0.4-3.0; 0.034 logMAR) with continued spectacle correction alone.

117 Spectacle correction and myopia data were combined to es

118 Appropriate spectacle correction can be prescribed to patients with

119 Spectacle correction coverage was analyzed against count

120 Three patients (5.1%) reported the need for spectacle correction for certain activities.

121 Average duration between spectacle correction to strabismus surgery was 21.8 mont

122 ct surgery coupled with IOL implantation and spectacle correction was 37.5% ( approximately $4000) mo

123 erage time between the onset of esotropia to spectacle correction was 7.2 months.

124 om the year of data collection; variation in spectacle correction was described best by a model based

125 rgery) and refractive error (reversible with spectacle correction) continue to cause most cases of bl

126 After refraction and spectacle correction, the prevalence of visual impairmen

127 other patients (94.8%) reported never using spectacle correction.

128 s (ages 22-57 years) were examined with best spectacle correction.

129 ts presented with large angle esotropia with spectacle correction.

130 A recent study suggested that updated spectacles could increase fall rate in frail older peopl

131 These findings suggest that ready-made spectacles could substantially reduce costs for school-b

132 n different parts of the globe in context to spectacle coverage for distance vision.

133 onent intervention be implemented to improve spectacle coverage in this rural north Indian setting.

134 The spectacle coverage was found in 33.3% (95% CI: 30.0, 36.

135 with objectives of determining prevalence of spectacle coverage, unmet needs and associated factors a

136 SE, deviation from predicted refraction, or spectacle cylinder at 1 month or at 1 year.

137 erlap was associated with a 0.50-D change in spectacle cylinder from 1 month to 1 year.

138 lorrhexis-optic overlap, 60% had a change in spectacle cylinder of more than 0.50 D from 1 month to 1

139 d tests and services in an attempt to reduce spectacle dependence in combination with cataract surger

140 ost sensitive to patient age, probability of spectacle dependence with multifocal IOLs and monofocal

141 Postoperatively, patients could experience spectacle dependence, glare, and haloes.

142 ned circuitry: owls reared wearing prismatic spectacles develop an adaptive microcircuit that coexist

143 out 25 % of the participants have been using spectacles during the study.

144 rtical toe clearance when wearing multifocal spectacles, elderly individuals may be at greater risk o

145 ollowing eligibility criteria for ready-made spectacles: failed vision screening at the 6/9 level in

146 flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and the spectacled flying-fox (P. conspicillatus), are currently

147 es similar to outcomes for contact lenses or spectacles for children who had both bilateral and unila

148 dren wearing their study spectacles or plano spectacles for the children in the observation group who

149 on (non-overminus spectacles if needed or no spectacles) for 8 weeks.

150 Reasons for non-compliance were broken/lost spectacles, forgetfulness, and parental disapproval.

151 The adjusted odds ratio of being spectacle free was 7.51 (95% confidence interval, 3.89-1

152 e refraction in the same treatment, offering spectacle-free vision in daily life in most of the patie

153 or patients who desire a higher chance to be spectacle-free.

154 group as a whole after the provision of free spectacles: function, 11.2 points (P = 0.0001); symptoms

155 Green spectacles gave way during the early 1900s to dark glass

156 graphic and optical characteristics, but not spectacle group.

157 n their treated eye were more likely to wear spectacles >=80% of their waking hours than children wit

158 ve at least 16 weeks of optical treatment in spectacles if needed or demonstrate no improvement in am

159 ic refraction) or observation (non-overminus spectacles if needed or no spectacles) for 8 weeks.

160 a pilot randomized clinical trial, overminus spectacles improved distance control at 8 weeks in child

161 visual incapacitation resulting from loss of spectacles, improving the rate of early detection of ocu

162 7%), topical lubricants in 8 patients (36%), spectacles in 1 patient (5%), and superficial keratectom

163 tory of prior amblyopia treatment other than spectacles in 96%) were randomly assigned to treatment f

164 tact lenses, rigid gas permeable lenses, and spectacles in children.

165 s substantial unmet need for distance vision spectacles in this population.

166 ted to assess the effectiveness of overminus spectacles in treating IXT, particularly the effect on c

167 Today, patients often expect to achieve spectacle independance after cataract surgery.

168 l [CI], -0.10 to -0.04) and provided greater spectacle independence (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0

169 at 60 cm; and high patient satisfaction and spectacle independence 3 months postoperatively.

170 ion despite some optical phenomena; and high spectacle independence 3 months postoperatively.

171 rienced, levels of patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence achieved also are summarized.

172 ltifocal intraocular lens (MFIOL) allows for spectacle independence after cataract surgery and is thu

173 Patient desire for increased spectacle independence after surgery is one of the main

174 ients' experience, satisfaction and level of spectacle independence after surgery.

175 Complete spectacle independence and high satisfaction score were

176 especially if surgeons intend to prioritize spectacle independence and patient autonomy at intermedi

177 fractive bifocal IOLs produce high levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

178 ual acuity, resulting in high levels of both spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

179 Patients reported a high rate of spectacle independence and satisfaction in everyday life

180 dividual vision they expect and with as much spectacle independence as possible.

181 l acuity outcomes, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence at 3 months of 2 diffractive (non

182 To develop a questionnaire quantifying spectacle independence following cataract surgery.

183 RSIQ is a patient-reported measure assessing spectacle independence following cataract surgery.

184 Visual dysphotopsia was worse and spectacle independence for all distances was higher in b

185 Spectacle independence is becoming increasingly importan

186 he qualitative results, the Patient-Reported Spectacle Independence Questionnaire (PRSIQ) was develop

187 uestionnaire (PRSIQ) was developed to assess spectacle independence via items that assess what patien

188 Complete spectacle independence was achieved in 69 of 84 (82.1%)

189 ve quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence was performed.

190 Patients' satisfaction and spectacle independence were evaluated with questionnaire

191 ctive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were evaluated.

192 ve quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence were performed.

193 to deliver the required relative customized spectacle independence with the least photic phenomenon

194 at toric IOLs provided better UCDVA, greater spectacle independence, and lower amounts of residual as

195 uded other questionnaire data (CatQuest-9SF, spectacle independence, vision satisfaction, and dysphot

196 use of the PRSIQ total score as a measure of spectacle independence.

197 support the use of the PRSIQ as a measure of spectacle independence.

198 distance visual acuity (UCDVA) and distance spectacle independence.

199 nd growing, with a high level of interest in spectacle independence.

200 The primary outcome was spectacle independence.

201 motivated patients who would like to achieve spectacle independence.

202 have excellent uncorrected visual acuity and spectacle independence.

203 .5 D to -2.5 D), resulting in high levels of spectacle independence.

204 p a patient-reported questionnaire assessing spectacle independence.

205 The IOLs were equivalent in achieving spectacle independence; 98% were "satisfied" to "very sa

206 rovided better uncorrected visual acuity and spectacles independence for intermediate/close-up and fa

207 l toric IOL implantation results in a higher spectacle independency for distance vision compared with

208 Spectacle independency for distance vision was achieved

209 Spectacle independency for distance vision, uncorrected

210 ime of cataract surgery will fail to achieve spectacle independency in 20% to 30% of patients.

211 rowing number of patients who wish to remain spectacle independent after cataract surgery, and this n

212 ecnis ZM900 were more likely to report being spectacle independent but also more likely to undergo IO

213 ed that patients often considered themselves spectacle independent yet, when probed, it was determine

214 ween esotropia onset and receiving hyperopic spectacles is associated with higher rate of sensory fus

215 Use of single-vision distance spectacles led to an increased single-limb support time,

216 Use of single-vision distance spectacles led to improvements in landing control, consi

217 k-old white Leghorn chicks wore a unilateral spectacle lens of +15 or -15 D for 6 hours or 3 days.

218 th, corneal curvature, or myopia relative to spectacle lens wear.

219 he retinal transcriptome in chicks wearing a spectacle lens, a well-established means of inducing ref

220 es rapidly compensate for defocus imposed by spectacle lenses by changing their rate of elongation an

221 ic and selective blue-violet light filtering spectacle lenses in patients affected by central or peri

222 Both diffusers and spectacle lenses induce myopia in mice under photopic co

223 t monkeys were reared wearing -3 diopter (D) spectacle lenses over one eye that produced relative hyp

224 (50) had non surgical treatment for control (spectacle lenses, occlusion, prisms, exercises) and 17%

225 the defocus imposed by positive or negative spectacle lenses.

226 study was conducted to assess the effects of spectacle magnification on step negotiation.

227 the increased risk may be due to changes in spectacle magnification.

228 These novel spectacles may enhance peripheral objects awareness by e

229 ned to wear soft contact lenses (n = 247) or spectacles (n = 237) for 3 years.

230 y and outcomes in ametropic children who are spectacle noncompliant and unsuitable for contact lens w

231 nder von Humboldt observed the extraordinary spectacle of native fisherman collecting electric eels (

232 aring multifocal compared with single-vision spectacles (one-sided Fisher's exact test P = 0.025).

233 ral disorders have chronic difficulties with spectacle or contact lens wear.

234 Colored spectacle or intraocular lens filters reduce both propor

235 t may necessitate an IOL exchange or wearing spectacles or contact lenses with a large refractive cor

236 n with gender, race, body mass index, use of spectacles or contact lenses, history of allergic eye di

237 yopia and strabismus who fail treatment with spectacles or contact lenses.

238 conducted with children wearing their study spectacles or plano spectacles for the children in the o

239 anges in the environment, such as magnifying spectacles or standing on a tilting platform.

240 regarding whether persons currently wearing spectacles or suffering from a chronic illnesses could d

241 significantly better with RGP CL's than with spectacles or unaided conditions and (2) the endpoint of

242 sfaction score of >=3.5 of 5 and required no spectacles postoperatively.

243 ired only YAG-Laser and 14 (5.5%) required a spectacle prescription only.

244 Optical treatment was provided as spectacles (prescription based on a cycloplegic refracti

245 presbyopia for subjective measurements (near spectacle prescriptions and add powers) was indicated, m

246 dures, surgical procedures, medications, and spectacle prescriptions.

247 Ready-made spectacles produce large but slightly smaller improvemen

248 determine whether less expensive ready-made spectacles produce rates of spectacle wear at 3 to 4 mon

249 hen the subjects wore single-vision distance spectacles, rather than tending to "drop" onto the lower

250 stigated short-term adaptation to first near-spectacle reading correction on the accommodative-stimul

251 acles, SCL, RGPL, and spectacle wear; or (B) spectacles, RGPL, SCL, and spectacle wear.

252 eatments (2-3 weeks for each treatment): (A) spectacles, SCL, RGPL, and spectacle wear; or (B) specta

253 senting acuity (uncorrected or with original spectacles), tested 4 weeks after the provision of free

254 er in the 27 children treated with overminus spectacles than in the 31 children who were observed wit

255 previous treatment for amblyopia other than spectacles, there was no benefit to VA or stereoacuity f

256 ract]) OR Adherent [Title/Abstract])) AND (((Spectacle [Title/Abstract]) OR Spectacles [Title/Abstrac

257 act])) AND (((Spectacle [Title/Abstract]) OR Spectacles [Title/Abstract]) OR Eye Glasses [Title/Abstr

258 Provision of spectacles to children in this setting had a significant

259 be required to address poor compliance with spectacle use among children.

260 Information on the spectacle use and associated factors was obtained using

261 Participants with met and unmet need for spectacle use at visual acuity > 6/12 was computed.

262 f this review was to measure compliance with spectacle use in children with refractive errors.

263 action questionnaire (regarding frequency of spectacle use in the past 7 days).

264 The overall compliance with spectacle use was 40.14% (95% CI- 32.78-47.50).

265 The current spectacle use was 7.5% (95% Confidence Interval CI: 6.5,

266 est refraction, keratometry, adverse events, spectacle use, and photographic documentation of IOL rot

267 es and 90.4 % had favorable attitude towards spectacle use.

268 ude, practice and associated factors towards spectacles use among adult population of Gondar town, no

269 However, practice of spectacles use is poor.

270 CI 14-10.72) had favorable attitude towards spectacles use.

271 ual acuity < 6/12 in any eye and all current spectacle users underwent detailed ophthalmic examinatio

272 Eye health education related to spectacles utilization need to be given due emphasis by

273 riteria include postoperative best-corrected spectacle visual acuity worse than 20/40, multifocal len

274 riod and then 2 months after the use of near spectacles was discontinued.

275 Visual acuity with spectacles was measured using the Amblyopia Treatment St

276 acles, and the proportion wearing ready-made spectacles was not inferior to the proportion wearing cu

277 Treatment (other than spectacles) was prescribed for 9 participants (6.1%) age

278 , tested 4 weeks after the provision of free spectacles, was 6/9 (range, 6/6-6/120).

279 SCL wearing compared with RGPL and baseline spectacle wear (P<0.05), although mean differences were

280 nsive ready-made spectacles produce rates of spectacle wear at 3 to 4 months comparable to those of m

281 Reported adherence to spectacle wear correlated with reported patching (r = 0.

282 bed for 1 hour per day 5 days per week) plus spectacle wear if needed (n = 69) or continued spectacle

283 Rates of spectacle wear in the 2 arms were similar among 139 of 1

284 nce control, baseline near control, prestudy spectacle wear, and prior IXT treatment.

285 ealth programs in India without compromising spectacle wear, at least in the short term.

286 acle wear; or (B) spectacles, RGPL, SCL, and spectacle wear.

287 er after 2 months of discontinuation of near spectacle wear.

288 h treatment): (A) spectacles, SCL, RGPL, and spectacle wear; or (B) spectacles, RGPL, SCL, and specta

289 emiologic research has shown that multifocal spectacle wearers (bifocal and progressive addition lens

290 difference between contact lens wearers and spectacle wearers was not statistically significant (95%

291 ne or both eyes (64 % of these were habitual spectacle wearers), need for improvement was present in

292 ice as likely to fall than are nonmultifocal spectacle wearers, with this risk further increasing whe

293 r year greater for contact lens wearers than spectacle wearers.

294 visual function compared with both RGPL and spectacle wearing at baseline, although mean effect size

295 y nystagmus characteristics or compared with spectacle wearing.

296 ntly reduce nystagmus compared with baseline spectacle wearing.

297 Aberrometry measurements of the eye and spectacles were made centrally, 30 degrees nasally, temp

298 sured before and after single-vision reading spectacles were worn for near tasks over a 2-month perio

299 tios did not change significantly after near spectacles were worn.

300 For patients who received hyperopic spectacles within 6 months of esotropia onset, 92.3% dev