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
Purpose: To assess accuracy of prostate measurements with and without endorectal coil (ERC).
Materials And Methods: Anteroposterior (AP), transverse (TX) and craniocaudal (CC) measurements were recorded from 49 prostate magnetic resonance images (MRIs) done both with and without ERC. Prostate weight was calculated as follows: AP*TX*CC*π/6. Prostate dimensions and weight were obtained from radical prostatectomy pathology report.
Results: After ERC placement, AP decreased by 0.71 cm [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.61], TX and CC increased by 0.26 cm (95% CI 0.18-0.33) and 0.25 cm (95% CI 0.16-0.35), respectively. Agreement between weight on pathology and MR was excellent: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) without ERC=0.96, ICC with ERC=0.90.
Conclusion: Although ERC distorts measurements and despite a tendency to underestimate the prostate weight, absolute agreement between prostate weight on pathology and MRI is excellent, both with and without ERC.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!