Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.EligibilityStudies were included based o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2020-07, Vol.10 (7), p.e034661
Hauptverfasser: Aladwani, Mohammad, Lophatananon, Artitaya, Ollier, William, Muir, Kenneth
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 7
container_start_page e034661
container_title BMJ open
container_volume 10
creator Aladwani, Mohammad
Lophatananon, Artitaya
Ollier, William
Muir, Kenneth
description ObjectiveTo identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.EligibilityStudies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).Data extraction and synthesisRelevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance.ResultsAn initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21.ConclusionOnly a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_bmj_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_034661</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_188d6f3833dc4aad88749f49b9eb48f5</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2433234617</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-cbc19041d63b6a1f1645bb9d842d317f7f82d15f79bfb4aa58d892a2c9c5e5d33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkVtrFDEcxQdRbKn9BIIEfJ4215nEB0GKl0JBH_Q55PLPNsvOZE2yLf32ps52276IeUlIzvnlJKfr3hJ8Rggbzu20TluYe4qJ6jHjw0BedMcUc94PWIiXT9ZH3Wkpa9wGF0oI-ro7YnRQWGBy3JkfGXx0NaYZTcnDpqCQMtrmVKqpgJyZHWRUE7KAdgU8ijOq19AUcTL5rgkyoAK1xnn1ARlU7kqFydToUIabCLdvulfBbAqc7ueT7teXzz8vvvVX379eXny66q0YZe2ddURhTvzA7GBIIAMX1iovOfWMjGEMknoiwqhssNwYIb1U1FCnnADhGTvpLheuT2at9_F0MlH_3Uh5pU1usTagiZR-CEwy5l1DeSlHrgJXVoHlMojG-riwtjs7gXcw12w2z6DPT-Z4rVfpRo9sJISrBni_B-T0ewel6nXa5bm9X1POGG2FkbGp2KJy7btLhnC4gWB9X7Pe16zva9ZLzc317mm4g-eh1CY4WwTN_Z_E80fDIei_HH8AeODEOA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2433234617</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review</title><source>BMJ Open Access Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Aladwani, Mohammad ; Lophatananon, Artitaya ; Ollier, William ; Muir, Kenneth</creator><creatorcontrib>Aladwani, Mohammad ; Lophatananon, Artitaya ; Ollier, William ; Muir, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectiveTo identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.EligibilityStudies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).Data extraction and synthesisRelevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance.ResultsAn initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21.ConclusionOnly a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32690501</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Area Under Curve ; Biomarkers ; Biopsy ; Costs ; Decision Support Techniques ; Epidemiology ; Humans ; Male ; Neural networks ; Patients ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Primary care ; Prostate cancer ; prostate disease ; Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood ; Prostatic Neoplasms - blood ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Public Health ; Risk assessment ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk Factors ; ROC Curve ; Systematic review ; urology</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2020-07, Vol.10 (7), p.e034661</ispartof><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>2020 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-cbc19041d63b6a1f1645bb9d842d317f7f82d15f79bfb4aa58d892a2c9c5e5d33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-cbc19041d63b6a1f1645bb9d842d317f7f82d15f79bfb4aa58d892a2c9c5e5d33</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0550-4657 ; 0000-0001-6429-988X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e034661.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/7/e034661.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,27526,27527,27901,27902,53766,53768,55325,77570,77601,77629,77655</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32690501$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aladwani, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lophatananon, Artitaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ollier, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muir, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><title>Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review</title><title>BMJ open</title><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><description>ObjectiveTo identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.EligibilityStudies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).Data extraction and synthesisRelevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance.ResultsAn initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21.ConclusionOnly a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.</description><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>prostate disease</subject><subject>Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - blood</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>urology</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkVtrFDEcxQdRbKn9BIIEfJ4215nEB0GKl0JBH_Q55PLPNsvOZE2yLf32ps52276IeUlIzvnlJKfr3hJ8Rggbzu20TluYe4qJ6jHjw0BedMcUc94PWIiXT9ZH3Wkpa9wGF0oI-ro7YnRQWGBy3JkfGXx0NaYZTcnDpqCQMtrmVKqpgJyZHWRUE7KAdgU8ijOq19AUcTL5rgkyoAK1xnn1ARlU7kqFydToUIabCLdvulfBbAqc7ueT7teXzz8vvvVX379eXny66q0YZe2ddURhTvzA7GBIIAMX1iovOfWMjGEMknoiwqhssNwYIb1U1FCnnADhGTvpLheuT2at9_F0MlH_3Uh5pU1usTagiZR-CEwy5l1DeSlHrgJXVoHlMojG-riwtjs7gXcw12w2z6DPT-Z4rVfpRo9sJISrBni_B-T0ewel6nXa5bm9X1POGG2FkbGp2KJy7btLhnC4gWB9X7Pe16zva9ZLzc317mm4g-eh1CY4WwTN_Z_E80fDIei_HH8AeODEOA</recordid><startdate>20200719</startdate><enddate>20200719</enddate><creator>Aladwani, Mohammad</creator><creator>Lophatananon, Artitaya</creator><creator>Ollier, William</creator><creator>Muir, Kenneth</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0550-4657</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6429-988X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200719</creationdate><title>Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review</title><author>Aladwani, Mohammad ; Lophatananon, Artitaya ; Ollier, William ; Muir, Kenneth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b578t-cbc19041d63b6a1f1645bb9d842d317f7f82d15f79bfb4aa58d892a2c9c5e5d33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>prostate disease</topic><topic>Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - blood</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aladwani, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lophatananon, Artitaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ollier, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muir, Kenneth</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aladwani, Mohammad</au><au>Lophatananon, Artitaya</au><au>Ollier, William</au><au>Muir, Kenneth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><stitle>BMJ Open</stitle><addtitle>BMJ Open</addtitle><date>2020-07-19</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e034661</spage><pages>e034661-</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>ObjectiveTo identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019.EligibilityStudies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).Data extraction and synthesisRelevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance.ResultsAn initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21.ConclusionOnly a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>32690501</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0550-4657</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6429-988X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2044-6055
ispartof BMJ open, 2020-07, Vol.10 (7), p.e034661
issn 2044-6055
2044-6055
language eng
recordid cdi_bmj_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_034661
source BMJ Open Access Journals; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access
subjects Area Under Curve
Biomarkers
Biopsy
Costs
Decision Support Techniques
Epidemiology
Humans
Male
Neural networks
Patients
Predictive Value of Tests
Primary care
Prostate cancer
prostate disease
Prostate-Specific Antigen - blood
Prostatic Neoplasms - blood
Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis
Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology
Public Health
Risk assessment
Risk Assessment - methods
Risk Factors
ROC Curve
Systematic review
urology
title Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-18T22%3A06%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prediction%20models%20for%20prostate%20cancer%20to%20be%20used%20in%20the%20primary%20care%20setting:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Aladwani,%20Mohammad&rft.date=2020-07-19&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e034661&rft.pages=e034661-&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034661&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2433234617%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2433234617&rft_id=info:pmid/32690501&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_188d6f3833dc4aad88749f49b9eb48f5&rfr_iscdi=true