FRI0024 Contribution of the Individual Components of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) to the Total DAS28 Score among Responders and Non-Responders to Biological Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background The commonly used Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) is a composite index composed of two somewhat subjective components (tender joint count and visual analogue scale general well-being) and two more objective components (swollen joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation ra...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of the rheumatic diseases 2014-06, Vol.73 (Suppl 2), p.389-390
Hauptverfasser: Jurgens, M.S., Overman, C.L., Jacobs, J.W., Geenen, R., Cuppen, B.V., Marijnissen, A.C., Bijlsma, J.W., Welsing, P.M., Lafeber, F.P., van Laar, J.M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 390
container_issue Suppl 2
container_start_page 389
container_title Annals of the rheumatic diseases
container_volume 73
creator Jurgens, M.S.
Overman, C.L.
Jacobs, J.W.
Geenen, R.
Cuppen, B.V.
Marijnissen, A.C.
Bijlsma, J.W.
Welsing, P.M.
Lafeber, F.P.
van Laar, J.M.
description Background The commonly used Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) is a composite index composed of two somewhat subjective components (tender joint count and visual analogue scale general well-being) and two more objective components (swollen joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate). However, not all individual components of DAS28 might respond similarly to treatment. Furthermore dominance of subjective over objective components in DAS28 at start of therapy might predict less effect of therapy. This subjective contribution relative to the total DAS28 was quantified through the “contribution score” (the subjective part of the DAS28 formula divided by the total DAS28 formula). Objectives First, to investigate if the contribution score of the study population changes over time between starting a first biological (baseline) and after three months of biological use, and to establish if this change is seen and similar in the non-, moderate- and good response to treatment groups. Second, to investigate if the subjective contribution at baseline is predictive of response to treatment at three months. Methods Patients included in this study were selected from two databases of the Utrecht Arthritis Cohort study group. In the CAMERA-II trial early RA patients had been included, comparing the addition of 10mg/day of prednisone or prednisone-placebo to a two-year MTX-based tight –controlled strategy, including a final step of adding a biological. In the more recent Utrecht observational Biological cohort study, any patient with RA who started a biological could be entered. A total of 51 of the CAMERA-II trial database patients and 121 of the Biological cohort study database, all starting a biological treatment, were included. To address the first objective, ANOVAs and paired t tests were performed. To address the second objective, an ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed (correcting for age, DAS28 at the start of the biological therapy, number of prior DMARDs used, cohort, gender, RF-status and smoking), with as criterion variable EULAR response (3 levels: non-, moderate- and good response) and as predictor variable the contribution score. Results Overall, a significant decrease in contribution score was observed (p
doi_str_mv 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1777911886</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4008754011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1856-dac878d8d06e3e274c29e1f7d66cb1f5cdebf6a91fbdfdf4a40c18e30979299a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkcFOGzEURa2KSg3Qf7DEpl0M2DMTj0ddpQFKJESlkK4tj_1MHGXs1PYgZceGT-NH-iU4CUhsu7J8fc97sg5CZ5ScU1qxC-lcWMLQaxuLktC6gGEtw3lNy_EnNKI14zlm5AiNCCFVUbes-YKOY1zlK-GUj9DL9XxGSFn_e3qeepeC7YZkvcPe4LQEPHPaPlo9yDWe-n7jHbgU3x8vbQQZAU9UyqW0xffKB8DfLif3Jf-Ok9-3Fj5lep-9FWTv3QOeQ8zzNISIpdP4zrviQ5Thn9av_YNVmV4sIcjNFhsf8Hz3YZm81XgS0jLYZOMp-mzkOsLXt_ME_bm-Wkxvitvfv2bTyW3RUT5mhZaKN1xzTRhUUDa1KlugptGMqY6asdLQGSZbajpttKllTRTlUJG2acu2ldUJOjvM3QT_d4CYxMoPweWVgjZN01LKOcutH4eWCj7GAEZsgu1l2ApKxM6b-OBN7LyJvTex85ZpdqC7fvVf4Cursae8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777911886</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>FRI0024 Contribution of the Individual Components of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) to the Total DAS28 Score among Responders and Non-Responders to Biological Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis</title><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><creator>Jurgens, M.S. ; Overman, C.L. ; Jacobs, J.W. ; Geenen, R. ; Cuppen, B.V. ; Marijnissen, A.C. ; Bijlsma, J.W. ; Welsing, P.M. ; Lafeber, F.P. ; van Laar, J.M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Jurgens, M.S. ; Overman, C.L. ; Jacobs, J.W. ; Geenen, R. ; Cuppen, B.V. ; Marijnissen, A.C. ; Bijlsma, J.W. ; Welsing, P.M. ; Lafeber, F.P. ; van Laar, J.M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background The commonly used Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) is a composite index composed of two somewhat subjective components (tender joint count and visual analogue scale general well-being) and two more objective components (swollen joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate). However, not all individual components of DAS28 might respond similarly to treatment. Furthermore dominance of subjective over objective components in DAS28 at start of therapy might predict less effect of therapy. This subjective contribution relative to the total DAS28 was quantified through the “contribution score” (the subjective part of the DAS28 formula divided by the total DAS28 formula). Objectives First, to investigate if the contribution score of the study population changes over time between starting a first biological (baseline) and after three months of biological use, and to establish if this change is seen and similar in the non-, moderate- and good response to treatment groups. Second, to investigate if the subjective contribution at baseline is predictive of response to treatment at three months. Methods Patients included in this study were selected from two databases of the Utrecht Arthritis Cohort study group. In the CAMERA-II trial early RA patients had been included, comparing the addition of 10mg/day of prednisone or prednisone-placebo to a two-year MTX-based tight –controlled strategy, including a final step of adding a biological. In the more recent Utrecht observational Biological cohort study, any patient with RA who started a biological could be entered. A total of 51 of the CAMERA-II trial database patients and 121 of the Biological cohort study database, all starting a biological treatment, were included. To address the first objective, ANOVAs and paired t tests were performed. To address the second objective, an ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed (correcting for age, DAS28 at the start of the biological therapy, number of prior DMARDs used, cohort, gender, RF-status and smoking), with as criterion variable EULAR response (3 levels: non-, moderate- and good response) and as predictor variable the contribution score. Results Overall, a significant decrease in contribution score was observed (p&lt;0.001), showing -in contrast to our hypothesis- a therapy effect more pronounced in the subjective parts of the DAS28 compared to the therapy effect in the objective components. When looking into the separate response groups, this significant change was observed only in the good responders (p&lt;0.001). The contribution score at baseline was not predictive of the different levels of response to treatment at three months (contribution score at baseline x100: proportional OR=1.001, p=0.8). Conclusions The treatment effect of this first administered biological is largest in the subjective components of DAS28, yet these subjective components of DAS28 at start of therapy do not predict treatment response levels at three months. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4967</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2060</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ARDIAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Limited</publisher><ispartof>Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2014-06, Vol.73 (Suppl 2), p.389-390</ispartof><rights>2014, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Copyright: 2014 (c) 2014, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1856-dac878d8d06e3e274c29e1f7d66cb1f5cdebf6a91fbdfdf4a40c18e30979299a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://ard.bmj.com/content/73/Suppl_2/389.3.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ard.bmj.com/content/73/Suppl_2/389.3.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,776,780,3183,23550,27901,27902,77342,77373</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jurgens, M.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Overman, C.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, J.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geenen, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuppen, B.V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marijnissen, A.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bijlsma, J.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welsing, P.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lafeber, F.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Laar, J.M.</creatorcontrib><title>FRI0024 Contribution of the Individual Components of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) to the Total DAS28 Score among Responders and Non-Responders to Biological Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis</title><title>Annals of the rheumatic diseases</title><description>Background The commonly used Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) is a composite index composed of two somewhat subjective components (tender joint count and visual analogue scale general well-being) and two more objective components (swollen joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate). However, not all individual components of DAS28 might respond similarly to treatment. Furthermore dominance of subjective over objective components in DAS28 at start of therapy might predict less effect of therapy. This subjective contribution relative to the total DAS28 was quantified through the “contribution score” (the subjective part of the DAS28 formula divided by the total DAS28 formula). Objectives First, to investigate if the contribution score of the study population changes over time between starting a first biological (baseline) and after three months of biological use, and to establish if this change is seen and similar in the non-, moderate- and good response to treatment groups. Second, to investigate if the subjective contribution at baseline is predictive of response to treatment at three months. Methods Patients included in this study were selected from two databases of the Utrecht Arthritis Cohort study group. In the CAMERA-II trial early RA patients had been included, comparing the addition of 10mg/day of prednisone or prednisone-placebo to a two-year MTX-based tight –controlled strategy, including a final step of adding a biological. In the more recent Utrecht observational Biological cohort study, any patient with RA who started a biological could be entered. A total of 51 of the CAMERA-II trial database patients and 121 of the Biological cohort study database, all starting a biological treatment, were included. To address the first objective, ANOVAs and paired t tests were performed. To address the second objective, an ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed (correcting for age, DAS28 at the start of the biological therapy, number of prior DMARDs used, cohort, gender, RF-status and smoking), with as criterion variable EULAR response (3 levels: non-, moderate- and good response) and as predictor variable the contribution score. Results Overall, a significant decrease in contribution score was observed (p&lt;0.001), showing -in contrast to our hypothesis- a therapy effect more pronounced in the subjective parts of the DAS28 compared to the therapy effect in the objective components. When looking into the separate response groups, this significant change was observed only in the good responders (p&lt;0.001). The contribution score at baseline was not predictive of the different levels of response to treatment at three months (contribution score at baseline x100: proportional OR=1.001, p=0.8). Conclusions The treatment effect of this first administered biological is largest in the subjective components of DAS28, yet these subjective components of DAS28 at start of therapy do not predict treatment response levels at three months. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125</description><issn>0003-4967</issn><issn>1468-2060</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkcFOGzEURa2KSg3Qf7DEpl0M2DMTj0ddpQFKJESlkK4tj_1MHGXs1PYgZceGT-NH-iU4CUhsu7J8fc97sg5CZ5ScU1qxC-lcWMLQaxuLktC6gGEtw3lNy_EnNKI14zlm5AiNCCFVUbes-YKOY1zlK-GUj9DL9XxGSFn_e3qeepeC7YZkvcPe4LQEPHPaPlo9yDWe-n7jHbgU3x8vbQQZAU9UyqW0xffKB8DfLif3Jf-Ok9-3Fj5lep-9FWTv3QOeQ8zzNISIpdP4zrviQ5Thn9av_YNVmV4sIcjNFhsf8Hz3YZm81XgS0jLYZOMp-mzkOsLXt_ME_bm-Wkxvitvfv2bTyW3RUT5mhZaKN1xzTRhUUDa1KlugptGMqY6asdLQGSZbajpttKllTRTlUJG2acu2ldUJOjvM3QT_d4CYxMoPweWVgjZN01LKOcutH4eWCj7GAEZsgu1l2ApKxM6b-OBN7LyJvTex85ZpdqC7fvVf4Cursae8</recordid><startdate>201406</startdate><enddate>201406</enddate><creator>Jurgens, M.S.</creator><creator>Overman, C.L.</creator><creator>Jacobs, J.W.</creator><creator>Geenen, R.</creator><creator>Cuppen, B.V.</creator><creator>Marijnissen, A.C.</creator><creator>Bijlsma, J.W.</creator><creator>Welsing, P.M.</creator><creator>Lafeber, F.P.</creator><creator>van Laar, J.M.</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201406</creationdate><title>FRI0024 Contribution of the Individual Components of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) to the Total DAS28 Score among Responders and Non-Responders to Biological Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis</title><author>Jurgens, M.S. ; Overman, C.L. ; Jacobs, J.W. ; Geenen, R. ; Cuppen, B.V. ; Marijnissen, A.C. ; Bijlsma, J.W. ; Welsing, P.M. ; Lafeber, F.P. ; van Laar, J.M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1856-dac878d8d06e3e274c29e1f7d66cb1f5cdebf6a91fbdfdf4a40c18e30979299a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jurgens, M.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Overman, C.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, J.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geenen, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuppen, B.V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marijnissen, A.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bijlsma, J.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welsing, P.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lafeber, F.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Laar, J.M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</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>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</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>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</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 Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Annals of the rheumatic diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jurgens, M.S.</au><au>Overman, C.L.</au><au>Jacobs, J.W.</au><au>Geenen, R.</au><au>Cuppen, B.V.</au><au>Marijnissen, A.C.</au><au>Bijlsma, J.W.</au><au>Welsing, P.M.</au><au>Lafeber, F.P.</au><au>van Laar, J.M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>FRI0024 Contribution of the Individual Components of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) to the Total DAS28 Score among Responders and Non-Responders to Biological Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the rheumatic diseases</jtitle><date>2014-06</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>Suppl 2</issue><spage>389</spage><epage>390</epage><pages>389-390</pages><issn>0003-4967</issn><eissn>1468-2060</eissn><coden>ARDIAO</coden><abstract>Background The commonly used Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) is a composite index composed of two somewhat subjective components (tender joint count and visual analogue scale general well-being) and two more objective components (swollen joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate). However, not all individual components of DAS28 might respond similarly to treatment. Furthermore dominance of subjective over objective components in DAS28 at start of therapy might predict less effect of therapy. This subjective contribution relative to the total DAS28 was quantified through the “contribution score” (the subjective part of the DAS28 formula divided by the total DAS28 formula). Objectives First, to investigate if the contribution score of the study population changes over time between starting a first biological (baseline) and after three months of biological use, and to establish if this change is seen and similar in the non-, moderate- and good response to treatment groups. Second, to investigate if the subjective contribution at baseline is predictive of response to treatment at three months. Methods Patients included in this study were selected from two databases of the Utrecht Arthritis Cohort study group. In the CAMERA-II trial early RA patients had been included, comparing the addition of 10mg/day of prednisone or prednisone-placebo to a two-year MTX-based tight –controlled strategy, including a final step of adding a biological. In the more recent Utrecht observational Biological cohort study, any patient with RA who started a biological could be entered. A total of 51 of the CAMERA-II trial database patients and 121 of the Biological cohort study database, all starting a biological treatment, were included. To address the first objective, ANOVAs and paired t tests were performed. To address the second objective, an ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed (correcting for age, DAS28 at the start of the biological therapy, number of prior DMARDs used, cohort, gender, RF-status and smoking), with as criterion variable EULAR response (3 levels: non-, moderate- and good response) and as predictor variable the contribution score. Results Overall, a significant decrease in contribution score was observed (p&lt;0.001), showing -in contrast to our hypothesis- a therapy effect more pronounced in the subjective parts of the DAS28 compared to the therapy effect in the objective components. When looking into the separate response groups, this significant change was observed only in the good responders (p&lt;0.001). The contribution score at baseline was not predictive of the different levels of response to treatment at three months (contribution score at baseline x100: proportional OR=1.001, p=0.8). Conclusions The treatment effect of this first administered biological is largest in the subjective components of DAS28, yet these subjective components of DAS28 at start of therapy do not predict treatment response levels at three months. Disclosure of Interest None declared DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub><doi>10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4967
ispartof Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2014-06, Vol.73 (Suppl 2), p.389-390
issn 0003-4967
1468-2060
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1777911886
source BMJ Journals - NESLi2
title FRI0024 Contribution of the Individual Components of the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) to the Total DAS28 Score among Responders and Non-Responders to Biological Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T01%3A40%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=FRI0024%E2%80%85Contribution%20of%20the%20Individual%20Components%20of%20the%20Disease%20Activity%20Score%20(DAS28)%20to%20the%20Total%20DAS28%20Score%20among%20Responders%20and%20Non-Responders%20to%20Biological%20Therapy%20for%20Rheumatoid%20Arthritis&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20rheumatic%20diseases&rft.au=Jurgens,%20M.S.&rft.date=2014-06&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=Suppl%202&rft.spage=389&rft.epage=390&rft.pages=389-390&rft.issn=0003-4967&rft.eissn=1468-2060&rft.coden=ARDIAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.4125&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4008754011%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777911886&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true