Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Gel and Intrauterine Devices in Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Women

To compare the recurrence rate, post-treatment American Fertility Society (AFS) score, ongoing pregnancy rate, and endometrial thickness of 3 secondary prevention therapies in preventing recurrent intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and increasing pregnancy rates in infertile women after hysteroscopic adh...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2022-02, Vol.29 (2), p.284-290
Hauptverfasser: Trinh, Thuy T., Nguyen, Kien D., Pham, Huong V., Ho, Thang V., Nguyen, Huong T., O'Leary, Sean, Le, Hien T.T., Pham, Hanh M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 290
container_issue 2
container_start_page 284
container_title Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
container_volume 29
creator Trinh, Thuy T.
Nguyen, Kien D.
Pham, Huong V.
Ho, Thang V.
Nguyen, Huong T.
O'Leary, Sean
Le, Hien T.T.
Pham, Hanh M.
description To compare the recurrence rate, post-treatment American Fertility Society (AFS) score, ongoing pregnancy rate, and endometrial thickness of 3 secondary prevention therapies in preventing recurrent intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and increasing pregnancy rates in infertile women after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. A retrospective study. A private fertility hospital. A total of 200 consecutive infertile women, with the desire to have a baby and were diagnosed as having IUAs detected by hysterosalpingogram, who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for IUAs from January, 2018 to May, 2020. Women who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis received hormone therapy, and one of the 3 secondary preventions: hyaluronic acid (HA) gel alone, intrauterine devices (IUDs) alone, or HA gel + IUD. Of the 200 women included in the final analysis, 121 received HA alone, 59 were treated with IUD alone, and 20 received HA gel + IUD combination. The mean post-treatment AFS score for IUAs was significantly lower in the HA gel + IUD group than the HA alone or the IUD alone groups (adjusted p = .01 and p = .02, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate in the women after treatment with HA gel + IUD than HA alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; 95% credible interval [CreI], 0.03–0.88). Women treated with HA gel + IUD also had reduced post-treatment AFS scores compared with HA alone (β coefficients, −0.83; 95% CreI, −1.64 to −0.01). For ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization, the adjusted odds ratio for HA gel + IUD vs HA alone was 2.03 (95% CreI, 0.44–11.00) and for IUD alone vs HA alone was 1.13 (95% CreI, 0.41–3.29), indicating nonsignificant differences. There were no differences observed in endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer among the 3 groups. The investigation of the primary outcome in reducing the recurrence rate IUA after treatment demonstrated that a combination of HA gel + IUD provides greater prevention of recurrent IUAs and may decrease post-treatment AFS scores for infertile women undergoing hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. However, for the secondary outcome of increasing pregnancy rates, there was no improvement in the ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.010
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2564951819</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1553465021003897</els_id><sourcerecordid>2564951819</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8b56a65efac32690aed34855f1699d8b3c6f7eb19713a19b5b51dfa9882808d93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2KFDEURoMozjj6Ai4kSzddJpVKOgE3zTg_DQPOYsRlSCU3mqYqaZOqhn4U39bU9DjgxtUNud934HIQek9JQwkVn3bNbgw_mpa0tCGyIZS8QOeUc7bqhFAvn9-cnKE3pewIYWtCxGt0xrqOMUrYOfp95T3YKRwgQik4eXx7NMOcUwwWb2xw-AYGbKLD2zhlM0-QQwT8BQ7BQsEh4vsMtTyFFJf2P6mN-wmlLgo2vn5VdKkjFZv2C_20HY4lPIK20UOewgD4exohvkWvvBkKvHuaF-jb9dXD5e3q7uvN9nJzt7KMi2kley6M4OCNZa1QxIBjneTcU6GUkz2zwq-hp2pNmaGq5z2nzhslZSuJdIpdoI8n7j6nXzOUSY-hWBgGEyHNRbdcdIpTSZdoe4raekTJ4PU-h9Hko6ZEL0r0Ti9K9KJEE6mrklr68MSf-xHcc-Wvgxr4fApAvfIQIOtiA0QLLuSqRrsU_sf_AxGloBs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2564951819</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Gel and Intrauterine Devices in Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Women</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Trinh, Thuy T. ; Nguyen, Kien D. ; Pham, Huong V. ; Ho, Thang V. ; Nguyen, Huong T. ; O'Leary, Sean ; Le, Hien T.T. ; Pham, Hanh M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Trinh, Thuy T. ; Nguyen, Kien D. ; Pham, Huong V. ; Ho, Thang V. ; Nguyen, Huong T. ; O'Leary, Sean ; Le, Hien T.T. ; Pham, Hanh M.</creatorcontrib><description>To compare the recurrence rate, post-treatment American Fertility Society (AFS) score, ongoing pregnancy rate, and endometrial thickness of 3 secondary prevention therapies in preventing recurrent intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and increasing pregnancy rates in infertile women after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. A retrospective study. A private fertility hospital. A total of 200 consecutive infertile women, with the desire to have a baby and were diagnosed as having IUAs detected by hysterosalpingogram, who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for IUAs from January, 2018 to May, 2020. Women who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis received hormone therapy, and one of the 3 secondary preventions: hyaluronic acid (HA) gel alone, intrauterine devices (IUDs) alone, or HA gel + IUD. Of the 200 women included in the final analysis, 121 received HA alone, 59 were treated with IUD alone, and 20 received HA gel + IUD combination. The mean post-treatment AFS score for IUAs was significantly lower in the HA gel + IUD group than the HA alone or the IUD alone groups (adjusted p = .01 and p = .02, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate in the women after treatment with HA gel + IUD than HA alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; 95% credible interval [CreI], 0.03–0.88). Women treated with HA gel + IUD also had reduced post-treatment AFS scores compared with HA alone (β coefficients, −0.83; 95% CreI, −1.64 to −0.01). For ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization, the adjusted odds ratio for HA gel + IUD vs HA alone was 2.03 (95% CreI, 0.44–11.00) and for IUD alone vs HA alone was 1.13 (95% CreI, 0.41–3.29), indicating nonsignificant differences. There were no differences observed in endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer among the 3 groups. The investigation of the primary outcome in reducing the recurrence rate IUA after treatment demonstrated that a combination of HA gel + IUD provides greater prevention of recurrent IUAs and may decrease post-treatment AFS scores for infertile women undergoing hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. However, for the secondary outcome of increasing pregnancy rates, there was no improvement in the ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-4650</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-4669</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34433103</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>AFS score ; Female ; Gel ; Humans ; Hyaluronic Acid - therapeutic use ; Hysteroscopy - adverse effects ; Hysteroscopy adhesiolysis ; Infertility, Female - etiology ; Infertility, Female - prevention &amp; control ; Infertility, Female - surgery ; Intrauterine adhesions ; Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects ; IUD ; Pregnancy ; Retrospective Studies ; Tissue Adhesions - etiology ; Tissue Adhesions - prevention &amp; control ; Tissue Adhesions - surgery ; Uterine Diseases - surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2022-02, Vol.29 (2), p.284-290</ispartof><rights>2021 AAGL</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8b56a65efac32690aed34855f1699d8b3c6f7eb19713a19b5b51dfa9882808d93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8b56a65efac32690aed34855f1699d8b3c6f7eb19713a19b5b51dfa9882808d93</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8848-4665 ; 0000-0002-0351-2672</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465021003897$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34433103$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Trinh, Thuy T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Kien D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pham, Huong V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Thang V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Huong T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Leary, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Le, Hien T.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pham, Hanh M.</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Gel and Intrauterine Devices in Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Women</title><title>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</title><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><description>To compare the recurrence rate, post-treatment American Fertility Society (AFS) score, ongoing pregnancy rate, and endometrial thickness of 3 secondary prevention therapies in preventing recurrent intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and increasing pregnancy rates in infertile women after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. A retrospective study. A private fertility hospital. A total of 200 consecutive infertile women, with the desire to have a baby and were diagnosed as having IUAs detected by hysterosalpingogram, who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for IUAs from January, 2018 to May, 2020. Women who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis received hormone therapy, and one of the 3 secondary preventions: hyaluronic acid (HA) gel alone, intrauterine devices (IUDs) alone, or HA gel + IUD. Of the 200 women included in the final analysis, 121 received HA alone, 59 were treated with IUD alone, and 20 received HA gel + IUD combination. The mean post-treatment AFS score for IUAs was significantly lower in the HA gel + IUD group than the HA alone or the IUD alone groups (adjusted p = .01 and p = .02, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate in the women after treatment with HA gel + IUD than HA alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; 95% credible interval [CreI], 0.03–0.88). Women treated with HA gel + IUD also had reduced post-treatment AFS scores compared with HA alone (β coefficients, −0.83; 95% CreI, −1.64 to −0.01). For ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization, the adjusted odds ratio for HA gel + IUD vs HA alone was 2.03 (95% CreI, 0.44–11.00) and for IUD alone vs HA alone was 1.13 (95% CreI, 0.41–3.29), indicating nonsignificant differences. There were no differences observed in endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer among the 3 groups. The investigation of the primary outcome in reducing the recurrence rate IUA after treatment demonstrated that a combination of HA gel + IUD provides greater prevention of recurrent IUAs and may decrease post-treatment AFS scores for infertile women undergoing hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. However, for the secondary outcome of increasing pregnancy rates, there was no improvement in the ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization.</description><subject>AFS score</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gel</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hyaluronic Acid - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hysteroscopy adhesiolysis</subject><subject>Infertility, Female - etiology</subject><subject>Infertility, Female - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Infertility, Female - surgery</subject><subject>Intrauterine adhesions</subject><subject>Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects</subject><subject>IUD</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - surgery</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - surgery</subject><issn>1553-4650</issn><issn>1553-4669</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc2KFDEURoMozjj6Ai4kSzddJpVKOgE3zTg_DQPOYsRlSCU3mqYqaZOqhn4U39bU9DjgxtUNud934HIQek9JQwkVn3bNbgw_mpa0tCGyIZS8QOeUc7bqhFAvn9-cnKE3pewIYWtCxGt0xrqOMUrYOfp95T3YKRwgQik4eXx7NMOcUwwWb2xw-AYGbKLD2zhlM0-QQwT8BQ7BQsEh4vsMtTyFFJf2P6mN-wmlLgo2vn5VdKkjFZv2C_20HY4lPIK20UOewgD4exohvkWvvBkKvHuaF-jb9dXD5e3q7uvN9nJzt7KMi2kley6M4OCNZa1QxIBjneTcU6GUkz2zwq-hp2pNmaGq5z2nzhslZSuJdIpdoI8n7j6nXzOUSY-hWBgGEyHNRbdcdIpTSZdoe4raekTJ4PU-h9Hko6ZEL0r0Ti9K9KJEE6mrklr68MSf-xHcc-Wvgxr4fApAvfIQIOtiA0QLLuSqRrsU_sf_AxGloBs</recordid><startdate>202202</startdate><enddate>202202</enddate><creator>Trinh, Thuy T.</creator><creator>Nguyen, Kien D.</creator><creator>Pham, Huong V.</creator><creator>Ho, Thang V.</creator><creator>Nguyen, Huong T.</creator><creator>O'Leary, Sean</creator><creator>Le, Hien T.T.</creator><creator>Pham, Hanh M.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</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>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-4665</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0351-2672</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202202</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Gel and Intrauterine Devices in Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Women</title><author>Trinh, Thuy T. ; Nguyen, Kien D. ; Pham, Huong V. ; Ho, Thang V. ; Nguyen, Huong T. ; O'Leary, Sean ; Le, Hien T.T. ; Pham, Hanh M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-8b56a65efac32690aed34855f1699d8b3c6f7eb19713a19b5b51dfa9882808d93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>AFS score</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gel</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hyaluronic Acid - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hysteroscopy adhesiolysis</topic><topic>Infertility, Female - etiology</topic><topic>Infertility, Female - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Infertility, Female - surgery</topic><topic>Intrauterine adhesions</topic><topic>Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects</topic><topic>IUD</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - surgery</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Trinh, Thuy T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Kien D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pham, Huong V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, Thang V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Huong T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Leary, Sean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Le, Hien T.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pham, Hanh M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Trinh, Thuy T.</au><au>Nguyen, Kien D.</au><au>Pham, Huong V.</au><au>Ho, Thang V.</au><au>Nguyen, Huong T.</au><au>O'Leary, Sean</au><au>Le, Hien T.T.</au><au>Pham, Hanh M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Gel and Intrauterine Devices in Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Women</atitle><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><date>2022-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>284</spage><epage>290</epage><pages>284-290</pages><issn>1553-4650</issn><eissn>1553-4669</eissn><abstract>To compare the recurrence rate, post-treatment American Fertility Society (AFS) score, ongoing pregnancy rate, and endometrial thickness of 3 secondary prevention therapies in preventing recurrent intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and increasing pregnancy rates in infertile women after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. A retrospective study. A private fertility hospital. A total of 200 consecutive infertile women, with the desire to have a baby and were diagnosed as having IUAs detected by hysterosalpingogram, who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for IUAs from January, 2018 to May, 2020. Women who underwent hysteroscopic adhesiolysis received hormone therapy, and one of the 3 secondary preventions: hyaluronic acid (HA) gel alone, intrauterine devices (IUDs) alone, or HA gel + IUD. Of the 200 women included in the final analysis, 121 received HA alone, 59 were treated with IUD alone, and 20 received HA gel + IUD combination. The mean post-treatment AFS score for IUAs was significantly lower in the HA gel + IUD group than the HA alone or the IUD alone groups (adjusted p = .01 and p = .02, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence rate in the women after treatment with HA gel + IUD than HA alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; 95% credible interval [CreI], 0.03–0.88). Women treated with HA gel + IUD also had reduced post-treatment AFS scores compared with HA alone (β coefficients, −0.83; 95% CreI, −1.64 to −0.01). For ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization, the adjusted odds ratio for HA gel + IUD vs HA alone was 2.03 (95% CreI, 0.44–11.00) and for IUD alone vs HA alone was 1.13 (95% CreI, 0.41–3.29), indicating nonsignificant differences. There were no differences observed in endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer among the 3 groups. The investigation of the primary outcome in reducing the recurrence rate IUA after treatment demonstrated that a combination of HA gel + IUD provides greater prevention of recurrent IUAs and may decrease post-treatment AFS scores for infertile women undergoing hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. However, for the secondary outcome of increasing pregnancy rates, there was no improvement in the ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>34433103</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.010</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-4665</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0351-2672</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1553-4650
ispartof Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2022-02, Vol.29 (2), p.284-290
issn 1553-4650
1553-4669
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2564951819
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects AFS score
Female
Gel
Humans
Hyaluronic Acid - therapeutic use
Hysteroscopy - adverse effects
Hysteroscopy adhesiolysis
Infertility, Female - etiology
Infertility, Female - prevention & control
Infertility, Female - surgery
Intrauterine adhesions
Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects
IUD
Pregnancy
Retrospective Studies
Tissue Adhesions - etiology
Tissue Adhesions - prevention & control
Tissue Adhesions - surgery
Uterine Diseases - surgery
title Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Gel and Intrauterine Devices in Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions after Hysteroscopic Adhesiolysis in Infertile Women
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T18%3A40%3A35IST&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=Effectiveness%20of%20Hyaluronic%20Acid%20Gel%20and%20Intrauterine%20Devices%20in%20Prevention%20of%20Intrauterine%20Adhesions%20after%20Hysteroscopic%20Adhesiolysis%20in%20Infertile%20Women&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20minimally%20invasive%20gynecology&rft.au=Trinh,%20Thuy%20T.&rft.date=2022-02&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=284&rft.epage=290&rft.pages=284-290&rft.issn=1553-4650&rft.eissn=1553-4669&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2564951819%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=2564951819&rft_id=info:pmid/34433103&rft_els_id=S1553465021003897&rfr_iscdi=true