iolmaster 500 optical biometry device (Carl Zeiss)
Carl Zeiss is a verified supplier 
Carl Zeiss manufactures this product 
90
Structured Review
Carl Zeiss
iolmaster 500 optical biometry device
Iolmaster 500 Optical Biometry Device, supplied by Carl Zeiss, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/iolmaster+500+optical+biometry+device/biometer+iolmaster+optical/pm39198275-59-13-12
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Iolmaster 500 Optical Biometry Device, supplied by Carl Zeiss, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/iolmaster+500+optical+biometry+device/biometer+iolmaster+optical/pm39198275-59-13-12
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
iolmaster 500 optical biometry device - by Bioz Stars,
2026-09
90/100 stars
Images
Related Articles
other:Article Title: Myopia progression over a 4-year period after laser-assisted refractive surgery in patients in their 20s and 30s. Article Snippet: Purpose To investigate the increase in refractive error (RE) and axial length (AL) in myopia patients in their 20s and 30s after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or epipolis-LASIK (epi-LASIK).. Study design Retrospective cohort study.. Methods This retrospective study involved 280 eyes of 140 myopia patients who underwent LASIK or epi-LASIK at the Baptist Eye Institute, Kyoto, Japan and who were followed for more than 5 years postoperatively. Article Title: Does blepharospasm effect biometric parameters and intraocular lens power calculations? Article Snippet: Results K1 (43.48 ± 2.02 vs. 43.57 ± 2.08, p = 0.036), Km (43.91 ± 1.99 vs. 43.99 ± 2.06, p = 0.024) and ACD (3.22 (2.77–3.76) vs. 3.41 (2.99–4.02), p < 0.001) values were found to be significantly higher.. The expected emmIOL according to the SRK-T (21.04 ± 1.6 vs. 20.93 ± 1.6, p = 0.048), Holladay (21.05 ± 1.6 vs. 20.91 ± 1.62, p = 0.037) and Hoffer-Q (21.08 ± 1.65 vs. 20.94 ± 1.68, p = 0.038) decreased significantly.. The expected emmIOL according to the Haigis formula slightly decreased, but it was not significant (p = 0.386). |