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
Objective: To compare a novel neonatal resuscitation cart (NRC) to a generic code cart (GCC).
Study Design: A prospective, randomised, controlled, crossover trial was performed to compare the utility of the NRC with the GCC during simulated deliveries of extremely low birthweight infants and infants with gastroschisis. Fifteen subjects participated. Mean times and accuracy of equipment and supply retrieval were compared for each scenario using the Wilcoxon test.
Results: Mean acquisition times for the NRC were always faster (by 58% to 74%) regardless of scenario (p<0.01). Accuracy of equipment selection did not differ. Ease of use was judged using a Likert scale (1=easiest to use; 5=most difficult), with mean score for NRC 1.1 and GCC 3.7 (p<0.0001). All subjects rated the NRC as easier to use.
Conclusions: The NRC was superior to the GCC in acquisition speed, supply selection and ease of use.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001336 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!