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
In 1997, Soergel et al published the first set of normative values for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in children. Since then, the clinical utility of ABPM has increased dramatically, and now, ABPM is accepted as the standard method to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension in children. Despite significant progress in the field of pediatric ABPM, many important questions remain unanswered. One of the most controversial issues is how to define ambulatory hypertension in children. The purpose of this review is to discuss the limitations of the current pediatric ABPM classification scheme and to provide the justification and rationale for a new classification.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8516706 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18138 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!