Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&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 utility of the plantar reflex in modern neurology is controversial. We studied the Babinski, Chaddock, and Oppenheim reflexes in terms of intraobserver, interobserver, and intertest agreement; sensitivity; positive predictive value (PPV); and observer bias. Sixty-two patients and 1,984 reflexes were analyzed. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement were weak (median κ <0.4). Intertest agreement was weak (median κ < 0.4) for all paired reflexes, although highest for the Babinski/Chaddock (0.30) ( < 0.05). There was no evidence of observer bias. Sensitivity was 59.7% for the Babinski, 55.3% for the Chaddock, and 30.0% for the Oppenheim. PPV was 70.3% for the Babinski, 66.5% for the Chaddock, and 61.3% for the Oppenheim. Our results show consistently low observer agreement for the plantar reflex. The Babinski and the Chaddock demonstrated comparable sensitivity and PPV.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764473 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000155 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!