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
Two passive haemagglutination methods for detecting HBsAg were compared. In general, the method using turkey erythrocytes was found preferable to the method employing sheep cells since it is more rapid and more sensitive, and less frequently gave rise to false positive reactions with sera from staff, blood donors, and patients not receiving haemodialysis. The turkey cell test gives rise to more false positive screen tests than the sheep cell test when monitoring renal dialysis patients since approximately 10% of the sera of these patients were found to contain turkey cell agglutinins, but this presents no particular difficulty if the recommended absorption procedures are used.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC476155 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jcp.29.8.732 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!