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
Point-of-care (POC) testing for the detection of pregnancy and the prediction of ovulation has grown and evolved since the introduction of the first qualitative pregnancy test marketed directly to the consumer over three decades ago. Numerous publications have analyzed both pregnancy and ovulation prediction devices for their sensitivity, accuracy and general utility. Despite vast improvements in ease-of-use and sensitivity from their earlier forms, the primary literature regarding the utility of these devices is at times incomplete. This article reviews the literature focusing on the sensitivity and accuracy of the modern urine-luteinizing hormone ovulation prediction devices, and the effect these devices have on fertility rates. In addition, the analytical sensitivity and clinical utility of POC pregnancy tests will be reviewed, along with the potential causes of false negative and false positive results.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2010.183 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!