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
Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is an inflammatory bowel disease characterized by a chronic and recurrent inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract caused by an interaction of genetic and environmental factors.
Objective: To compare the quality and acceptance of two different oral contrast volumes for computed tomography enterography in Crohn's disease patients.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 58 consecutive Crohn's disease patients who randomly received an oral contrast agent composed of 78.75 g polyethylene glycol diluted in either 1,000 mL or 2,000 mL of water. An examination was performed to evaluate the presence of inflammation or complications in the small bowel. The variables included the quality of intestinal segment filling and luminal distension, and oral contrast agent acceptance and tolerance in the patients. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and association tests.
Results: A total of 58 patients were assessed, in which 58.6% were female, 34.5% exhibited clinically-active disease, and 63.8% were receiving biologic therapy. As for comparative analysis between the two different volumes of oral contrast, no statistically significant difference was found regarding bowel loop filling (P=0.58) and adequate luminal distension (P=0.45). Patients who received a larger volume (2,000 mL) exhibited side-effects more frequently (51.7% vs 31.0%; P=0.06) and had greater difficulty ingesting the agent (65.5% vs 37.9%; P=0.07) compared with a volume of 1,000 mL.
Conclusion: The quality of computed tomography enterography was not influenced by the contrast volume. However, acceptance and tolerance were better in the 1,000 mL group.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-2803.202100000-55 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!