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
We compared the Accu-CulShure guarded specimen collection device and a swab inserted into a B-D Port-a-Cul transport tube in terms of their efficacy under ideal conditions for recovery of bacteria from 10 decubitus ulcer specimens. Cultures yielded 57 aerobes and 21 anaerobes; 76 isolates were recovered with use of Accu-CulShure, and 72 isolates were recovered with use of Port-a-Cul. Both systems were comparable for recovery of organisms in terms of quantitative and qualitative results.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clinids/16.supplement_4.s325 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!