Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Using retrospective and prospective analyses of antenatal records, it was found that by 2003, discussions about the options for delivery after one lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) were almost always documented in antenatal notes, compared with only rare entries in 1993; specific mention of the risks of scar rupture were made in just under 50% in 2003. There was a considerable reduction in the proportion of women whose preference was to labour in 2003 compared with 1993 and also in the number who ultimately delivered vaginally. There was, however, no evidence that those women with whom possible scar rupture had been discussed were discouraged from attempting vaginal delivery. These data suggest that, contrary to expectations, increasing patients' involvement in their management in this situation does not result in fewer caesarean sections.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443610500119697 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!