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
Thirty-four patients with a high suspicion of gastric lesion at endoscopy were studied by two computed tomographic (CT) techniques: one using a gas-producing agent and the other using water as an oral contrast media. Intravenous contrast medium was also given in all patients who underwent the water technique. Final histologic proof was obtained either by endoscopy or at surgery. Both CT techniques detected the wall abnormality in 32 of the 34 patients, and both techniques missed the same lesion in two patients. The water technique showed more gastric wall details and the lesion's limits could be defined more accurately. The acceptance and tolerance of the gas-producing agent was better in severely ill patients than tap water.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01887371 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!