Practitioner trial of SOLA Percepta progressive lenses

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Volumn 82, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 187-190

  Kris, M J ^a  

^a SOLA International   (Australia)

Author keywords

Performance; Practitioner trial; Progressive lenses

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748775821     PISSN: 08164622     EISSN: 14440938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.1999.tb06641.x     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Borish IM, Hitzeman SA. Comparison of the acceptance of progressive addition multifocals with blended bifocals. J Amer Optom Assoc 1983; 54: 415–422.
2. Spaulding DH. Patient preference for a progressive addition multifocal lens (Varilux 2) vs a standard multifocal lens design (ST-25). J Amer Optom Assoc 1981; 52: 789–794.
3. Hitzeman SA, Myers CO. Comparison of the acceptance of progressive addition multifocal vs a standard multifocal lens design. J Amer Optom Assoc 1985; 56: 706–710.
4. Boroyan HJ, Cho MH, Fuller BC, Krefman RA, McDougall JH, Schaeffer JL, Tahran RL. Lined multifocal wearers prefer progressive addition lenses. J Amer Optom Assoc 1995; 66: 296–300.
5. Brookman KE, Hall EAC, Jensen MJ. A comparative study of the Seiko P-3 and Varilux 2 progressive addition lenses. J Amer Optom Assoc 1988; 59: 406–410.
6. Cho MH, Barnette CB, Aiken B., Shipp M. A clinical study of patient acceptance of Varilux Plus and Varilux Infinity lenses. J Amer Optom Assoc 1991; 62: 449–453.
7. Schultz DN. Factors influencing patient acceptance of Varilux 2 lenses. J Amer Optom Assoc 1983; 54: 513–520.
8. Wittenberg S., Richmond PN, Cohen-Setton J., Winter RR. Clinical comparison of Truvision Omni and four progressive addition lenses. J Amer Optom Assoc 1983; 54: 513–520.
9. Hanks A., Kris MJ, Hartley L., Peachey G., Simon A. A clinical wearer study of SOLA ACCESS lens. Clin Exp Optom 1996; 79: 205–208.
10. Fisher SW. Relationship between contour plots and the limits of ‘clear and comfortable’ vision in the near zone of a progressive addition lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1997; 74: 527–531.