PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Eye Protective Devices”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 721 records · Page 40Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Testing the bioelectric shield.

A pendant was claimed to provide numerous health benefits, including reduced stress, increased strength, and protection from electromagnetic radiation from computers and mobile phones. Three experiments tested the effectiveness of this pendant's effect as a bioelectric shield. In the first experiment, 12 subjects who work with computers wore shields (6 real, 6 sham) for several weeks and were regularly tested for hand strength and mood changes. Both types of shield increased calmness, but the real shields did not have any greater effect. In 2 further studies (in each N=40) hand strength was measured at baseline, with mobile phone, and with mobile phone and bioelectric or sham shield. The shields did not differ in their effects. Both studies showed a significant correlation between the change in strength with and without the shield and subjects'scores on a questionnaire concerning their belief in and use of alternative therapies. The shields appear to produce a measurable placebo effect but are otherwise ineffective.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

The FUBI system for solar rating nonprescription eyewear.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to develop a comprehensive method of rating nonprescription eyewear for its ability to protect the eye against solar damage, the FUBI (Fashion, Ultraviolet, Blue, and Infrared) System is presented. The system presents a numeric value, from Oto 100, for each of the three known harmful portions of the solar spectrum: ultraviolet UV), blue/violet (B), and infrared (IR). A fourth value was determined for the fashion (F) of the eyewear as it relates to protection of the eye against reflected or scattered radiation that is not transmitted through the eyewear. METHODS: The numeric value of the system for UV, B, and IR was derived by taking the average transmittance of radiation through each tested lens and weighting it by multiplying that value by a relative toxicity factor (RTF) for each waveband of solar radiation tested. The RTF was derived by multiplying the approximate level of radiation reaching a specified anatomic part of the eye at sea level for each wavelength tested (Elambda) by the inverse of the value of its action spectrum (sensitivity, Slambda) on that part of the eye. This weighted average transmitted percentage of radiation was then deducted from 100 to derive the FUBI value for the UV, B, and IR range. The numeric value for F was derived by measuring the scattered or reflected light from five known sources of luminance at a fixed distance around opacified lenses on each tested frame. RESULTS: The FUBI values for six known commercial products of nonprescription eyewear are presented for comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The FUBI system presents a comprehensive, scientifically valid means of rating nonprescription eyewear for solar protective value. The system will provide consumers of nonprescription eyewear with more useful, comparative information about the protective qualities of eyewear against solar radiation.

Eye Protective Devices↗
PubMed2002

UV protection.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Eye↗
PubMed2002

Ocular problems in military free fall parachutists.

Military free fall parachutists may be unaware of the risk of corneal freezing and desiccation keratitis should their goggles come off during free fall in subfreezing temperatures. We determine the incidence of ocular difficulties in military free fall parachutists and the role freezing temperatures may play in causing these problems. We found that 79% of those who responded to the survey had lost their goggles at least once during free fall and 69% experienced ocular symptoms after goggle loss. Analysis shows a 30-fold increase in the duration of symptoms in subfreezing vs. above-freezing temperatures, with the odds of the ground mission being affected at 7.3 per 100 jumps in the subfreezing group. The rate of goggles coming off per jump is 3.3 times less with >75 jumps. Contact lenses are not protective and photorefractive keratectomy was not detrimental.

Altitude↗
PubMed2003

UV protection.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Eye Protective Devices↗