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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
Increasing the proportion of motile and normal spermatozoa is an important objective for assisted reproductive procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the results of a Percoll and swim-up-method, especially on the sperm morphology. The Percoll technique gave a recovery rate of 81.3% of motile spermatozoa against a recovery rate of 28.98% for the swim-up technique. When the percentage of normal spermatozoa was also brought into calculation the recovery rate with the Percoll technique decreased to 62.03% and increased to 31.81% for the swim-up technique. This was due to a decrease in the resultant morphology of the Percoll technique to a median of 8.0% and an increase to 11.5% for the swim-up technique from a median of 10.5% of the original samples.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0272.1990.tb01957.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!