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
The examination of the sensation of the anal orifice and the contraction of the external anal sphincter, either voluntarily or reflexly, has always been an integral part of the International Standards for Neurologic Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). Yet the importance of this component has been defended and challenged. This paper compares these two points of view as expressed by Previnaire and Marino, respectively. Both authors make important points but as the papers do not address the same aspect of the anal exam, room for further refinement of ISNCSCI both regarding the details of the exam and the use of components of the exam for prognostication of neurologic recovery is apparent.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5798752 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41394-017-0014-y | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!