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
Recently, several scoring systems have been proposed to predict outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, objectively and quantitatively assessing kidney calculi complexity using cross-sectional imaging. These scoring systems are promising new tools that can guide surgical decision making, predict surgical outcomes, counsel patients undergoing stone surgery, and improve standardized academic reporting in percutaneous kidney stone surgery. In this article, we review features of each of these systems, their similarities and differences, and their applicability in clinical practice and relevance in academic reporting.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0494-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!