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
The aim of this 100-patient prospective study was to compare three types of investigations in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: initial clinical examination, initial appendicular ultrasound examination, and final results of repeated clinical examinations carried out within the first 48 hours. Final results included initial evaluation, obvious clinical results and definitive results from patients under 48 hour observation for uncertain diagnosis. Clinical initial or appendicular ultrasound examinations were poorly contributive to diagnosis (overall accuracy: 76 percent). On the contrary, repeated clinical examinations yielded a 100 percent sensitivity, a 94 percent specificity, a 94 percent positive predictive value, a 97 percent negative predictive value and a 97 p. 100 overall accuracy. No morbidity was noted in observing patients for 48 hours. Unwarranted appendectomies were carried out in 3 percent of cases. Ultrasonography of the appendix seems useful for the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!