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
The rate of contrast injection during i.v. urography may vary considerably (bolus injection or drip infusion). The effect of 5 rates of injection (6, 12, 18, 36 and 72 ml/min) on the contrast density in the renal collecting system was examined over a period of 30 minutes. Measurements showed an inter-individual difference of more than 200% in each group. The intra-individual variations for different rates of injection were very slight; individual concentration in the kidney for a given dose depends only slightly on the rate of injection. There is no statistically significant improvement in contrast values as a result of a bolus injection. The reduced incidence of side effects justifies the use of bolus injections but pressure injections are unnecessary from a diagnostic point view.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1032693 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!