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
Acutely ill medical patients may be at increased risk of venous thromboembolism, both during hospitalization and after discharge. International guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for high-risk medical patients with low bleeding risk for a maximum of 14 days. There are two approaches to identify the high-risk patient: adhering to the inclusion criteria used in randomized clinical trials or using risk assessment models. With both approaches, about 40% of medical inpatients should result at increased risk of venous thrombosis. However, in the real world, medical inpatients are more fragile than patients enrolled in clinical trials, and thus also require a careful assessment of the individual bleeding risk. The complex balance between risks and benefits of thromboprophylaxis has become particularly relevant in studies assessing extended prophylaxis beyond hospitalization in this setting. In the present review, we will summarize the most recent evidence on this topic.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14779072.2013.845525 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!