PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “COMPUTERS, ANALOG”

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 847 records · Page 47Linked to original sources
PubMed1975

Optic disk topography and visual field defects in patients with increased intraocular pressure.

One hundred one eyes of 54 ocular hypertensive patients were studied to determine the value of optic disk evaluation in predicting the presence or absence and the location and type of visual field defects by means of binocular slit-lamp examination and projected 35-mm monocular color slides. We suspected visual field loss erroneously in only one patient, and failed to detect ten (16%) of 61 eyes with field defects. An examiner experienced in slit-lamp evaluation of the optic disk can accurately predict the presence, absence, and location of field defects in most cases by stereoscopic evaluation of disk topography.

Adult↗
PubMed1984

A quantitative technique for assessing nasal airway impairment.

The controversy concerning the effects of impaired nasal respiration on dentofacial development stems largely from the lack of a reliable method to assess airway impairment. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a quantitative technique to estimate nasal airway dimensions so that normal and impaired nasorespiratory function could be defined. The method involves a modification of the theoretical hydraulic principle and utilizes the following equation to estimate cross-sectional area of the nose (NA): NA = V/K [2(delta P)/d] 1/2 (where d = density of air). Pressure drop (delta P) across the nose is measured simultaneously with airflow (V) through the nose during breathing, using appropriate transducers and a PDP 11/34 computer. An analog model of the upper airway was used to determine the discharge coefficient (k) and estimate measurement error. Model studies demonstrate a measurement error of less than 5% for nasal cross-sectional areas of 0.02 to 1.2 cm2. Studies involving eighteen adult subjects and twenty-six children 8 to 11 years of age revealed mean smallest cross-sectional nasal areas of 0.62 cm2 +/- 0.17 and 0.43 cm2 +/- 0.076, respectively. The results indicate that the technique should enable clinicians to (1) estimate size of the airway during breathing, (2) distinguish between normal and impaired nasal respiratory function, and (3) determine quantitatively the effects of surgical and/or orthodontic treatment for improving nasal respiration.

Adolescent↗