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
The authors review their procedure adopted at ultrasonic placentography. Examinations were done before amniocentesis in 21 cases and because of supposed placenta praevia in 111 cases. Patients delivered at thier institution, so the site of placental implantation could be controlled. They had only one "dangerous" mistake: considering a placenta praevia to be only placental implantation on the lower segment, otherwise ultrasonic diagnosis was wrong in 5 cases. So the efficience of our method can be taken as 96,2 per cent. The call attention to the difficulties of of posterior wall placenta diagnosis. They state that ultrasonic placentography is the least harmful among available procedures and also the safest way the localisation of placenta.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!