תוצאות חיפוש עבור משקפי-שמש-פולארויד

שלום רב, גם משקפיים רגילים עושים את אותה הפעולה. הדבר תלוי יותר בהעדפה אישית ובמחיר. בברכה, דר' אליה לוינגר

תנסה לבדוק האם משקפיים רגילים , לא מקטבים , פותרים את הבעיה.

השאלה אינה קשורה לנושא הפורום.

שלום אלי, עדשות מקוטבות (polarized) לא חוסמות קרינה אל מקטבות את האור, לא מאפשרות לאור לעבור דרך העדשה בזווית מסוימת ובכך מאפשרות ראייה נקייה יותר מסנוורים. כל העדשות האיכותיות נגד השמש אמורות לחסום UV 400 כולל העדשות המקוטבות.

שלום עירית, יתכן שקנית משקפי שמש עם עדשות מקטבות- polarized שהן נחשבות עדשות שמקטינות סנוורים, ומה שאת מתארת שאת רואה במסך הטלפון זה אפקט הקיטוב.

אליעד שלום רב. 11 יום זה זמן קצר מידי על מנת להשיג תוצאה סופית 1. זה מאוד אינדיבידואלי. לא ניתן לקבוע. 2. זה קשור כנראה ליובש זמני. 3. אם אתה במקעב מסודר אני לי חושב שיש ממה לדאוג 4. תשתדל לא לשכוח אל לא סביר שיקרה משהו רע בברכה, ד"ר אורי מלר.

שלום, משקפי ראייה ושמש מנקים באותה הצורה, עם ספרי מתאים ומלית מיוחדת, או עם מים ומעט סבון. עדיף לא להשאיר את משקפי השמש במכונית, הטמפרטורה יכולה להיות מאוד מאוד גבוהה בקיץ. בברכה, אייל ברקו אופטומטריסט מוסמך - B.SC http://www.dr-optica.co.il ------------------------------------ ד"ר אופטיקה כצנלסון 40 גבעתיים 03-5733111 התאמת כל סוגי עדשות-המגע, משקפי-ראייה במספרים גבוהים ומולטיפוקלים מתקדמים ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

עדשות מסוג פולורואיד,הן עדשות אשר מקטבות את האור ומפחיתות סנוור יותר מאשר עדשות של משקפי שמש רגילים. כמדומני,היתה חברה שייצרה משקפי שמש בשם פולורואיד (אולי היא עדיין קיימת,אבל גם אם היא קיימת בארץ אין לה נציגות). ישנן הרבה חברות המייצרות משקפי שמש עם עדשות פולורואיד. משקפי השמש עבור ילדים (וגם עבור מבוגרים)? אמורות להיות מלוטשות (ולא סתם חתיכת פלסטיק צבועה). הן אמורות להיות מצופות בשכבה חוסמת UV. ואם אפשר אז שהעדשות יהיו עשויות מחומר פלסטי קשיח העמיד בפני שברים. אם את לא מוצאת משקפי שמש עם עדשות פולורואיד עבור בתך,ניתן להסתפק במשקפיים עם עדשות רגילות(העומדות בתנאים שפירטתי לעיל).לעניות דעתי,ההבדל בין 2 הסוגים(פולורואיד ורגיל) אצל ילדים הוא פחות קריטי מאשר אצל מבוגרים.

Fertil Steril. 2006 Aug;86(2):267-73. Epub 2006 Jun 6. Links Optimal stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization.Muasher SJ, Abdallah RT, Hubayter ZR. Muasher Center for Fertility AND IVF, Fairfax, Virginia 22031, USA. [email protected] OBJECTIVE: To update clinicians on different gonadotropin regimens for ovarian stimulation for IVF including the use of urinary AND recombinant gonadotropins, the value of added LH to FSH in the stimulation regimen, the use of GnRH agonists AND antagonists, AND the role of minimal stimulation protocols. DESIGN: Literature review AND critical analysis of major articles during the last five years on ovarian stimulation for IVF. CONCLUSION(S): Urinary AND recombinant gonadotropins, for ovarian stimulation for IVF, are probably equally safe AND effective. The higher cost for recombinant products limits their worldwide use in IVF. Conflicting data exist regarding the benefit of adding LH to FSH in the stimulation regimens. The use of different GnRH-agonists, of varying potency, may account for different levels of LH suppression. Adding LH should be considered in severe situations of LH suppression such as with the use of potent GnRH-agonists OR when GnRH-antagonists are introduced during the course of stimulation. GnRH-antagonists provide advantages to patients in terms of fewer injections, shorter stimulation days, AND avoidance of adverse effects of agonists. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is probably less with antagonists compared to agonists, with the option to use an agonist as a surrogate LH surge. Fixed AND early start of the antagonist is probably more effective than an individualized AND late start. The earlier reported lower pregnancy rates with antagonists compared to agonists is not fully understood AND needs to be continually monitored. Minimal stimulation protocols using a combination of clomiphene citrate AND gonadotropins are attractive AND should be considered in some patients owing to lower costs AND acceptable success rates. The optimal stimulation protocol for IVF should be an individualized regimen based on the patient's ovarian physiology AND prior IVF experience, if any. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD003357. Links Update of: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):CD003357. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Vale L, Templeton A. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Cornhill Road, Aberdeen, UK, AB15 2ZD. [email protected] BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (RCOG 1998). However, with estimated live-birth rates per cycle varying between 13% AND 28%, its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management AND less invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination, concerns about multiple complications AND costs associated with IVF, it is extremely important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to determine, in the context of unexplained infertility, whether IVF improves the probability of live-birth compared with (1) expectant management, (2) clomiphene citrate (CC), (3) intrauterine insemination (IUI) alone, (4) IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation, AND (5) gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders AND Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched 23 March 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1970 to August 2004), EMBASE (1985 to August 2004) AND reference lists of articles. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings AND contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were included. Live-birth rate per woman was the primary outcome of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility AND quality of trials. MAIN RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials were identified. In two we could not extract data separately for unexplained infertility cases, two were non-randomised, one did not report valid rates (included in the review but not in the meta-analysis); leaving four trials for analysis. One trial compared two different interventions (IVF versus IUI with OR without ovarian stimulation) AND one study compared three interventions (IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation AND GIFT). The numbers of trials assessing the effectiveness of IVF with the other treatments were as follows: IVF versus expectant management (two), IVF versus IUI (one), IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation (two) AND IVF versus GIFT (three). Live-birth rate per woman was reported in three studies AND three studies determined clinical pregnancy rate per woman. Multiple pregnancy rate was reported in three trials. Two studies reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as an outcome measure. There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate AND no comparative data on live-birth rates for GIFT. There was no evidence of a difference in live-birth rates between IVF AND IUI either without (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.88 to 4.4) OR with (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.4) ovarian stimulation. There were significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with IVF in comparison to expectant management (OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.07 to 9.80). There was no significant difference between IVF AND GIFT for the one RCT that reported live-birth rates (OR 2.57; 95% CI 0.93 to 7.08). However, there was a significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates between IVF AND GIFT, with pregnancy rates greater for IVF (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.2). There was no evidence of a difference in the multiple pregnancy rates between IVF AND IUI with ovarian stimulation (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.5), however, IVF had a higher rate than GIFT (OR 6.3; 95% CI 1.7 to 23). Clinical heterogeneity was present among the studies included. However, there was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity, which allowed the studies to be combined for statistical analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Any effect of IVF relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI with OR without ovarian stimulation AND GIFT in terms of live-birth rates for couples with unexplained subfertility remains unknown. The studies included are limited by their small sample size so that even large differences might be hidden. Live-birth rates are seldom reported. Periods of follow up are inadequate AND unequal. Adverse effects such as multiple pregnancies AND ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome have also not been reported in most studies. Larger trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of IVF in these women. Future trials should not only report rates per woman/couple but also include adverse effects AND costs of the treatments as outcomes. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility AND previous pregnancy history should also be considered. Am Fam Physician. 2006 Jan 1;73(1):63-5. Links IVF therapy for unexplained infertility.Harrison EC, Taylor JS. Department of Family Medicine, Brown Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. PMID: 16417064 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.aafp.org/afp/20060101/cochrane.html#c1Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Dec;11(6):750-60. Links Changing genetic world of IVF, stem cells AND PGD. A. Early methods in research.Edwards RG. [email protected] Genetics proved essential to introduce IVF, preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) AND embryo stem cells in the 1960s. Its small input in early years was confined to aspects such as timing follicle growth AND ovulation. Modest understanding in the mid- to late 1980s, mostly on studies in mice, involved the actions of single genes AND the balance between maternal AND zygotic transcripts in preimplantation stages. Human IVF began after human oocytes were matured in vitro, AND their meiotic chromosomes analysed. Their fertilization in vitro led to PGD AND embryo stem cells. Unlike mouse embryos, most human embryos failed to implant, so the best had to be selected to improve IVF pregnancy rates. Initially, faster-growing embryos proved superior. Later, patterns of polarized nucleoli in pronuclei, the degree of blastomere fragmentation AND growth of embryos in vitro to blastocysts provided excellent markers. Single cells could be isolated from embryos using micromanipulation. Stem cells from inner cell mass, a branch of IVF, differentiated into immortal stem cell lines in vitro if disaggregated. They formed virtually all body tissues in blastocysts cultured intact OR when injected singly into recipient blastocysts. Later, the genetic controls of ES cell differentiation were assessed, together with factors switching them along specific differentiation pathways. Marker genes identified ES cells differentiating into various tissues. PMID: 16417742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE