A PHP Error was encountered

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

A novel biphasic oral contrast solution for enterographic studies. | LitMetric

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and patients' tolerance of a new mixed biphasic oral contrast solution with routine biphasic oral contrast agent in magnetic resonance (MR) enterography (MRE).

Materials And Methods: Thirty-seven patients (group 1) had MRE with the new mixture, whereas 14 patients (group 2) had MRE with biphasic oral contrast agent (lactulose). Magnetic resonance enterography images were evaluated by 2 experienced radiologists. Each intestinal segment was evaluated for luminal distension (LD), distinction from the surrounding tissue (wall conspicuity), and the confidence of radiologist for evaluation of the specified segment (radiological evaluation confidence). Comparisons between the 2 groups were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Interrater and intrarater agreement values were obtained. In addition, patients' acceptability and tolerance were assessed.

Results: The new mixture was more effective than the oral contrast agent used in group 2 for LD, wall conspicuity, and radiological confidence. The values of interrater and intrarater agreement in scoring LD, wall conspicuity, and radiological confidence were generally moderate.

Conclusion: Our new mixture allowed good-quality enterographic images, and this solution was well tolerated by patients. In addition, this mixture is useful for evaluation of small bowels and colonic segments. We suggest the use of it for enterographic examinations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e318276b585DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

oral contrast
20
biphasic oral
16
contrast agent
12
wall conspicuity
12
contrast solution
8
magnetic resonance
8
resonance enterography
8
patients group
8
group mre
8
interrater intrarater
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!