ライフサイエンスコーパス: refractive correction

1 on, fundus evaluation, and VA retesting with refractive correction.

2 in 3, and undetermined in 5) that prevented refractive correction.

3 ng spectacles or contact lenses with a large refractive correction.

4 heir vision improved to 20/40 or better with refractive correction.

5 ty improved to a normal level as a result of refractive correction.

6 ment of 30 seconds of arc in each group from refractive correction.

7 million (9.2%) women have an unmet need for refractive correction.

8 27 patients at the first visit after initial refractive correction.

9 osis of amblyopia without the need for prior refractive correction.

10 , adjusting for participant demographics and refractive correction.

11 tion strategies result in safe and effective refractive correction.

12 assess the quality of life of ametropes with refractive correction.

13 The initial treatment consists of refractive correction.

14 rrected distance visual acuity with the same refractive correction.

15 lished refractive errors was evaluated after refractive correction.

16 he quality of cataract surgery and access to refractive correction.

17 m for this demographic was limited access to refractive correction, a large degree of nonrefractive p

18 the study cohort presented with a change of refractive correction above +/-0.50 D in one or both eye

19 e, this study is important to understand how refractive correction affects contrast sensitivity, whic

20 Refractive correction alone or in combination with occlu

21 used to examine the relation between mode of refractive correction and dry eye status, frequency of s

22 Treatment comprised full refractive correction and full-time total occlusion ther

23 After treatment with refractive correction and patching, some patients have r

24 > 0.15 logMAR and BCVA </= 0.15 logMAR after refractive correction and unmet refractive error (UREN),

25 /- 4.3 years) with the participants' optimal refractive correction and when blurred with +1.00, +2.00

26 ology, and multifocality can produce precise refractive correction and, hopefully, the type of accomm

27 ations also emerged between MPOD and form of refractive correction, and iris color.

28 All wore best refractive correction, and none had clinically significa

29 All wore best refractive correction, and none had clinically significa

30 Consideration should be given to prescribing refractive correction as the sole initial treatment for

31 raction is the gold-standard for prescribing refractive correction, but its accuracy is limited by pa

32 were uncorrected visual acuity, stability of refractive correction, contrast sensitivity, and wavefro

33 4 weeks post-operatively prior to obtaining refractive correction following uncomplicated phacoemuls

34 ing baseline examinations, patients received refractive correction for 2 months and were subsequently

35 chet angle-supported pIOL provided excellent refractive correction for up to 5 years after implantati

36 previous treatment for amblyopia other than refractive correction from the pediatric ophthalmology u

37 y that many children will require additional refractive correction given the high variability of refr

38 All infants with refractive correction >/=+3.50 D were treated initially

39 sure of both the availability and quality of refractive correction in a population.

40 fect contrast sensitivity; therefore, proper refractive correction is essential to improve visual acu

41 of age with previously untreated (except for refractive correction) IXT and near stereoacuity of 400

42 ence characteristics of participants without refractive correction (n = 92, aged 5-10 years) with and

43 ver the past year has demonstrated that full refractive correction of the cataract patient is now pos

44 seful in making decisions about differential refractive correction of the two eyes.

45 pia (n = 30, 6-35 years of age), compared to refractive correction on vision, selective attention and

46 usly validated tool to measure the impact of refractive correction on visual functioning, was adapted

47 5 (SD) to1.51 +/- 0.28 (SD) LogCS units with refractive correction (p = 0.000).

48 ng studies have characterized the effects of refractive correction, patching, and atropine penalizati

49 nt error may compromise clinical testing and refractive correction procedures.

50 assessed with the Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire at each visit

51 The Quality of Life Impact Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire is a Rasch-va

52 the scatterplot of attempted versus achieved refractive correction revealed a predictable procedure (

53 PKs had significantly higher postoperative refractive correction than DSAEKs, with no significant i

54 Independent of the refractive correction, the creation of the lamellar LASI

55 Providing appropriate refractive correction to those individuals whose vision

56 The stability of the refractive correction was excellent for both groups.

57 The most common barrier for refractive correction was lack of perceived need for ref

58 validate the Malay version of the QIRC among refractive correction wearers in Malaysia using Rasch an

59 ristics for assessing the quality of life of refractive correction wearers in Malaysia.

60 Subjects wore their habitual refractive corrections while viewing a letter target acc

61 chers and physicians strive to obtain better refractive correction with smaller wound size and minimi