Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease
Background Several imaging-based scoring systems have been used as outcome measures in assessing the severity of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. It has been shown that chest radiography performs equally to computed tomography (CT). There is the opinion that of the two most commonly used chest rad...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Pediatric radiology 2014-05, Vol.44 (5), p.529-534 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 534 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 529 |
| container_title | Pediatric radiology |
| container_volume | 44 |
| creator | Cleveland, Robert H. Stamoulis, Catherine Sawicki, Gregory Kelliher, Emma Zucker, Evan J. Wood, Christopher Zurakowski, David Lee, Edward |
| description | Background
Several imaging-based scoring systems have been used as outcome measures in assessing the severity of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. It has been shown that chest radiography performs equally to computed tomography (CT). There is the opinion that of the two most commonly used chest radiograph (CXR) systems, the Brasfield system is less sensitive and reliable than the Wisconsin system.
Objective
This report assesses the reproducibility and reliability of the two systems.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with CXRs during a 5-year period were randomly selected. One hundred eighty-two studies had data for all CXRs and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV-1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC). PFT values closest to the date of each CXR were recorded. Four radiologists scored each image twice by both the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems. Intra- and inter-rater reliability, correlation with PFTs and direct correlation of the two systems were calculated.
Results
Intra-rater agreement:
r
= 0.86–0.99 Brasfield,
r
= 0.78–0.96 Wisconsin. Inter-rater agreement: 0.76–0.90 Brasfield,
r
= 0.74–0.97 Wisconsin. Brasfield vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.55, vs. FVC
r
= 0.61. Wisconsin vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.57, vs. FVC
r
= 0.66. Correlation of the two systems:
r
= 0.86 (all
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00247-013-2848-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1517398514</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1517398514</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b1e21aabafcd447d9315a214bcc69b09760c898a1f10ba2dc0dfee995f3128f83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9v1DAQxS0EosvCB-CCLHHhEvDYzsY-QsU_qRKXVj1ajjMGV0m89SSV-u3raAtCSJxmJP_e88w8xl6DeA9CdB9ICKm7RoBqpNGmgSdsB1rJBqw1T9lOKAGN0NqesRdEN0II1YJ6zs6kVp3orN6x5VPxFBOOA_fzwK8ThTxTmnmtJc0_Od3TghPxX_4OOd6ufuR3flyRe-J5XUKetpaQaMJ54UvOY32IPFRdCjymvmRKxMe1mg2J0BO-ZM-iHwlfPdY9u_ry-fL8W3Px4-v3848XTVCdXJoeUIL3vY9h0LobrILWS9B9CAfbC9sdRDDWeIggei-HIIaIaG0bFUgTjdqzdyffY8m3K9LiprofjqOfMa_koIVOWdPWm-3Z23_Qm7yWuU63UYc6jzUbBScq1KWoYHTHkiZf7h0It0XiTpG4GonbInFQNW8endd-wuGP4ncGFZAngI7bxbH89fV_XR8AXuGYYw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1516372984</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Cleveland, Robert H. ; Stamoulis, Catherine ; Sawicki, Gregory ; Kelliher, Emma ; Zucker, Evan J. ; Wood, Christopher ; Zurakowski, David ; Lee, Edward</creator><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Robert H. ; Stamoulis, Catherine ; Sawicki, Gregory ; Kelliher, Emma ; Zucker, Evan J. ; Wood, Christopher ; Zurakowski, David ; Lee, Edward</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Several imaging-based scoring systems have been used as outcome measures in assessing the severity of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. It has been shown that chest radiography performs equally to computed tomography (CT). There is the opinion that of the two most commonly used chest radiograph (CXR) systems, the Brasfield system is less sensitive and reliable than the Wisconsin system.
Objective
This report assesses the reproducibility and reliability of the two systems.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with CXRs during a 5-year period were randomly selected. One hundred eighty-two studies had data for all CXRs and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV-1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC). PFT values closest to the date of each CXR were recorded. Four radiologists scored each image twice by both the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems. Intra- and inter-rater reliability, correlation with PFTs and direct correlation of the two systems were calculated.
Results
Intra-rater agreement:
r
= 0.86–0.99 Brasfield,
r
= 0.78–0.96 Wisconsin. Inter-rater agreement: 0.76–0.90 Brasfield,
r
= 0.74–0.97 Wisconsin. Brasfield vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.55, vs. FVC
r
= 0.61. Wisconsin vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.57, vs. FVC
r
= 0.66. Correlation of the two systems:
r
= 0.86 (all
P
< 0.001).
Conclusion
The Brasfield and Wisconsin systems performed very similarly providing equally reproducible, robust and reliable measures.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-0449</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1998</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00247-013-2848-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24370794</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Cystic Fibrosis - diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neuroradiology ; Nuclear Medicine ; Observer Variation ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Pediatrics ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiography, Thoracic - methods ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Respiratory Function Tests - methods ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Severity of Illness Index ; Single-Blind Method ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Pediatric radiology, 2014-05, Vol.44 (5), p.529-534</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b1e21aabafcd447d9315a214bcc69b09760c898a1f10ba2dc0dfee995f3128f83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b1e21aabafcd447d9315a214bcc69b09760c898a1f10ba2dc0dfee995f3128f83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00247-013-2848-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00247-013-2848-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24370794$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Robert H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stamoulis, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawicki, Gregory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelliher, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zucker, Evan J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zurakowski, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Edward</creatorcontrib><title>Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease</title><title>Pediatric radiology</title><addtitle>Pediatr Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Pediatr Radiol</addtitle><description>Background
Several imaging-based scoring systems have been used as outcome measures in assessing the severity of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. It has been shown that chest radiography performs equally to computed tomography (CT). There is the opinion that of the two most commonly used chest radiograph (CXR) systems, the Brasfield system is less sensitive and reliable than the Wisconsin system.
Objective
This report assesses the reproducibility and reliability of the two systems.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with CXRs during a 5-year period were randomly selected. One hundred eighty-two studies had data for all CXRs and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV-1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC). PFT values closest to the date of each CXR were recorded. Four radiologists scored each image twice by both the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems. Intra- and inter-rater reliability, correlation with PFTs and direct correlation of the two systems were calculated.
Results
Intra-rater agreement:
r
= 0.86–0.99 Brasfield,
r
= 0.78–0.96 Wisconsin. Inter-rater agreement: 0.76–0.90 Brasfield,
r
= 0.74–0.97 Wisconsin. Brasfield vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.55, vs. FVC
r
= 0.61. Wisconsin vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.57, vs. FVC
r
= 0.66. Correlation of the two systems:
r
= 0.86 (all
P
< 0.001).
Conclusion
The Brasfield and Wisconsin systems performed very similarly providing equally reproducible, robust and reliable measures.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Cystic Fibrosis - diagnosis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiography, Thoracic - methods</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Respiratory Function Tests - methods</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0301-0449</issn><issn>1432-1998</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9v1DAQxS0EosvCB-CCLHHhEvDYzsY-QsU_qRKXVj1ajjMGV0m89SSV-u3raAtCSJxmJP_e88w8xl6DeA9CdB9ICKm7RoBqpNGmgSdsB1rJBqw1T9lOKAGN0NqesRdEN0II1YJ6zs6kVp3orN6x5VPxFBOOA_fzwK8ThTxTmnmtJc0_Od3TghPxX_4OOd6ufuR3flyRe-J5XUKetpaQaMJ54UvOY32IPFRdCjymvmRKxMe1mg2J0BO-ZM-iHwlfPdY9u_ry-fL8W3Px4-v3848XTVCdXJoeUIL3vY9h0LobrILWS9B9CAfbC9sdRDDWeIggei-HIIaIaG0bFUgTjdqzdyffY8m3K9LiprofjqOfMa_koIVOWdPWm-3Z23_Qm7yWuU63UYc6jzUbBScq1KWoYHTHkiZf7h0It0XiTpG4GonbInFQNW8endd-wuGP4ncGFZAngI7bxbH89fV_XR8AXuGYYw</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Cleveland, Robert H.</creator><creator>Stamoulis, Catherine</creator><creator>Sawicki, Gregory</creator><creator>Kelliher, Emma</creator><creator>Zucker, Evan J.</creator><creator>Wood, Christopher</creator><creator>Zurakowski, David</creator><creator>Lee, Edward</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><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>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease</title><author>Cleveland, Robert H. ; Stamoulis, Catherine ; Sawicki, Gregory ; Kelliher, Emma ; Zucker, Evan J. ; Wood, Christopher ; Zurakowski, David ; Lee, Edward</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-b1e21aabafcd447d9315a214bcc69b09760c898a1f10ba2dc0dfee995f3128f83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Cystic Fibrosis - diagnosis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiography, Thoracic - methods</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Respiratory Function Tests - methods</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Robert H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stamoulis, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawicki, Gregory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelliher, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zucker, Evan J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zurakowski, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Edward</creatorcontrib><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>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology 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>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</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>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pediatric radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cleveland, Robert H.</au><au>Stamoulis, Catherine</au><au>Sawicki, Gregory</au><au>Kelliher, Emma</au><au>Zucker, Evan J.</au><au>Wood, Christopher</au><au>Zurakowski, David</au><au>Lee, Edward</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease</atitle><jtitle>Pediatric radiology</jtitle><stitle>Pediatr Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Pediatr Radiol</addtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>529</spage><epage>534</epage><pages>529-534</pages><issn>0301-0449</issn><eissn>1432-1998</eissn><abstract>Background
Several imaging-based scoring systems have been used as outcome measures in assessing the severity of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. It has been shown that chest radiography performs equally to computed tomography (CT). There is the opinion that of the two most commonly used chest radiograph (CXR) systems, the Brasfield system is less sensitive and reliable than the Wisconsin system.
Objective
This report assesses the reproducibility and reliability of the two systems.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with CXRs during a 5-year period were randomly selected. One hundred eighty-two studies had data for all CXRs and pulmonary function tests (PFTs), Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV-1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC). PFT values closest to the date of each CXR were recorded. Four radiologists scored each image twice by both the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems. Intra- and inter-rater reliability, correlation with PFTs and direct correlation of the two systems were calculated.
Results
Intra-rater agreement:
r
= 0.86–0.99 Brasfield,
r
= 0.78–0.96 Wisconsin. Inter-rater agreement: 0.76–0.90 Brasfield,
r
= 0.74–0.97 Wisconsin. Brasfield vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.55, vs. FVC
r
= 0.61. Wisconsin vs. FEV-1:
r
= 0.57, vs. FVC
r
= 0.66. Correlation of the two systems:
r
= 0.86 (all
P
< 0.001).
Conclusion
The Brasfield and Wisconsin systems performed very similarly providing equally reproducible, robust and reliable measures.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>24370794</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00247-013-2848-1</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0301-0449 |
| ispartof | Pediatric radiology, 2014-05, Vol.44 (5), p.529-534 |
| issn | 0301-0449 1432-1998 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1517398514 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Adolescent Child Child, Preschool Cystic Fibrosis - diagnosis Female Humans Imaging Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neuroradiology Nuclear Medicine Observer Variation Oncology Original Article Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods Pediatrics Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods Radiography, Thoracic - methods Radiology Reproducibility of Results Respiratory Function Tests - methods Sensitivity and Specificity Severity of Illness Index Single-Blind Method Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Ultrasound |
| title | Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value as outcome assessment tools of cystic fibrosis lung disease |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T15%3A50%3A25IST&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=Brasfield%20and%20Wisconsin%20scoring%20systems%20have%20equal%20value%20as%20outcome%20assessment%20tools%20of%20cystic%20fibrosis%20lung%20disease&rft.jtitle=Pediatric%20radiology&rft.au=Cleveland,%20Robert%20H.&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=529&rft.epage=534&rft.pages=529-534&rft.issn=0301-0449&rft.eissn=1432-1998&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00247-013-2848-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1517398514%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=1516372984&rft_id=info:pmid/24370794&rfr_iscdi=true |