Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam
The performances of the human-baited double net trap (HDNT) and the human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) methods were compared against the outdoor human landing catch (OHLC) method in Thailand and Vietnam. Two study sites were selected in each country: a rural village and a nearby forest setting. The...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical entomology 2022-11, Vol.59 (6), p.2139-2149 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2149 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 2139 |
container_title | Journal of medical entomology |
container_volume | 59 |
creator | Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan Duong, Tran Thanh Chinh, Vu Duc Thieu, Nguyen Quang Hii, Jeffrey Bangs, Michael J. Aum-Aung, Boonserm Suwonkerd, Wannapa Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap |
description | The performances of the human-baited double net trap (HDNT) and the human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) methods were compared against the outdoor human landing catch (OHLC) method in Thailand and Vietnam. Two study sites were selected in each country: a rural village and a nearby forest setting. The three outdoor trap methods were rotated nightly between three set trapping positions, in a pre-assigned Latin square design. Volunteers were rotated following the trap rotation to avoid bias. The greatest number of adult mosquitoes was collected from the forest sites in both countries, showing Anopheles minimus (s.s.)Theobald (96.54%) and Anopheles dirus (s.s.) Peyton & Harrison (25.71%) as the primary malaria vectors in Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. At theThai forest site, OHLC collected significantly more anopheline mosquitoes per trap night than HDNT and HDT, with mean ± standard error values of 14.17 ± 4.42, 4.83 ± 1.56, and 4.44 ± 1.45, respectively, whilst HDNT and HDT were significantly less productive at 0.34 times and 0.31 times, respectively, than OHLC in capturing anopheline mosquitoes. However, there were no significant differences among the three methods of trapping malaria vectors for the village site. At the Vietnamese forest site, HDNT achieved the highest performance in collecting Anopheline mosquitoes at 1.54 times compared to OHLC, but there was no significant difference between the two traps. The results suggested HDNT could be a possible alternative trap to OHLC in this area. Although HDT was less efficient at attracting Anopheline mosquitoes, it was highly efficient at trapping culicine mosquitoes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jme/tjac147 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2723155407</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A768657081</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/jme/tjac147</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A768657081</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b407t-dabc897635d9e922ccaa83bdcc54956ac6f8b64bb340bd068e85e1abaaba69bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkd1rFDEUxYModq0--S4DglRk2iQzySSPdfELKn1w7WvIx502y8xkmmQE__tm3a2iiJKEkJvfuTnkIPSc4FOCZXO2HeEsb7UlbfcArYhsRE0lFQ_RCmNKa8oEO0JPUtpijAVp5WN01HCKBSV8hYZ1GGcdfQpTFfrqCmwOsdpEPc9-uq4-Q74JLlV9KV4u2YWyv_X5x5Ueik7fS74s8Rv4YdCThcpP1eZG-3Jw1W5deciTHp-iR70eEjw77Mfo6_t3m_XH-uLyw6f1-UVtWtzl2mljhex4w5wESam1WovGOGtZKxnXlvfC8NaYpsXGYS5AMCDa6DK5LOVjdLLvO8dwu0DKavTJws4chCUp2tGGMFYeK-jLP9BtWOJU3CkqaCMYFy37RV3rAZSf-pCjtrum6rzjgrOu_GyhTv9CleFg9DZM0PtS_03wZi-wMaQUoVdz9KOO3xXBapetKtmqQ7aFfnGwupgR3E_2PswCvNoDYZn_0-n1HjQ-FFv_ZO8AZKK7Qw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2823856845</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan ; Duong, Tran Thanh ; Chinh, Vu Duc ; Thieu, Nguyen Quang ; Hii, Jeffrey ; Bangs, Michael J. ; Aum-Aung, Boonserm ; Suwonkerd, Wannapa ; Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</creator><creatorcontrib>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan ; Duong, Tran Thanh ; Chinh, Vu Duc ; Thieu, Nguyen Quang ; Hii, Jeffrey ; Bangs, Michael J. ; Aum-Aung, Boonserm ; Suwonkerd, Wannapa ; Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</creatorcontrib><description>The performances of the human-baited double net trap (HDNT) and the human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) methods were compared against the outdoor human landing catch (OHLC) method in Thailand and Vietnam. Two study sites were selected in each country: a rural village and a nearby forest setting. The three outdoor trap methods were rotated nightly between three set trapping positions, in a pre-assigned Latin square design. Volunteers were rotated following the trap rotation to avoid bias. The greatest number of adult mosquitoes was collected from the forest sites in both countries, showing Anopheles minimus (s.s.)Theobald (96.54%) and Anopheles dirus (s.s.) Peyton & Harrison (25.71%) as the primary malaria vectors in Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. At theThai forest site, OHLC collected significantly more anopheline mosquitoes per trap night than HDNT and HDT, with mean ± standard error values of 14.17 ± 4.42, 4.83 ± 1.56, and 4.44 ± 1.45, respectively, whilst HDNT and HDT were significantly less productive at 0.34 times and 0.31 times, respectively, than OHLC in capturing anopheline mosquitoes. However, there were no significant differences among the three methods of trapping malaria vectors for the village site. At the Vietnamese forest site, HDNT achieved the highest performance in collecting Anopheline mosquitoes at 1.54 times compared to OHLC, but there was no significant difference between the two traps. The results suggested HDNT could be a possible alternative trap to OHLC in this area. Although HDT was less efficient at attracting Anopheline mosquitoes, it was highly efficient at trapping culicine mosquitoes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-2585</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-2928</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjac147</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36208216</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Entomological Society of America</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Animals ; Anopheles ; Aquatic insects ; Control ; Culicidae ; Forests ; Human performance ; human-baited double net trap ; human-baited host decoy trap ; Humans ; Latin square design ; Malaria ; Methods ; Mosquito Control - methods ; Mosquito Vectors ; Mosquitoes ; outdoor biting mosquitoes ; outdoor human landing catch ; Standard error ; Thailand - epidemiology ; Trapping ; Vector-borne diseases ; VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES, SURVEILLANCE, PREVENTION ; Vectors ; Vietnam ; Villages</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical entomology, 2022-11, Vol.59 (6), p.2139-2149</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. journals.permissions@oup.com</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Oxford University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b407t-dabc897635d9e922ccaa83bdcc54956ac6f8b64bb340bd068e85e1abaaba69bb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7097-7683 ; 0000-0001-7012-6889 ; 0000-0002-7362-5621</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1578,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36208216$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duong, Tran Thanh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chinh, Vu Duc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thieu, Nguyen Quang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hii, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bangs, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aum-Aung, Boonserm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suwonkerd, Wannapa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam</title><title>Journal of medical entomology</title><addtitle>J Med Entomol</addtitle><description>The performances of the human-baited double net trap (HDNT) and the human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) methods were compared against the outdoor human landing catch (OHLC) method in Thailand and Vietnam. Two study sites were selected in each country: a rural village and a nearby forest setting. The three outdoor trap methods were rotated nightly between three set trapping positions, in a pre-assigned Latin square design. Volunteers were rotated following the trap rotation to avoid bias. The greatest number of adult mosquitoes was collected from the forest sites in both countries, showing Anopheles minimus (s.s.)Theobald (96.54%) and Anopheles dirus (s.s.) Peyton & Harrison (25.71%) as the primary malaria vectors in Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. At theThai forest site, OHLC collected significantly more anopheline mosquitoes per trap night than HDNT and HDT, with mean ± standard error values of 14.17 ± 4.42, 4.83 ± 1.56, and 4.44 ± 1.45, respectively, whilst HDNT and HDT were significantly less productive at 0.34 times and 0.31 times, respectively, than OHLC in capturing anopheline mosquitoes. However, there were no significant differences among the three methods of trapping malaria vectors for the village site. At the Vietnamese forest site, HDNT achieved the highest performance in collecting Anopheline mosquitoes at 1.54 times compared to OHLC, but there was no significant difference between the two traps. The results suggested HDNT could be a possible alternative trap to OHLC in this area. Although HDT was less efficient at attracting Anopheline mosquitoes, it was highly efficient at trapping culicine mosquitoes.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anopheles</subject><subject>Aquatic insects</subject><subject>Control</subject><subject>Culicidae</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Human performance</subject><subject>human-baited double net trap</subject><subject>human-baited host decoy trap</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Latin square design</subject><subject>Malaria</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mosquito Control - methods</subject><subject>Mosquito Vectors</subject><subject>Mosquitoes</subject><subject>outdoor biting mosquitoes</subject><subject>outdoor human landing catch</subject><subject>Standard error</subject><subject>Thailand - epidemiology</subject><subject>Trapping</subject><subject>Vector-borne diseases</subject><subject>VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES, SURVEILLANCE, PREVENTION</subject><subject>Vectors</subject><subject>Vietnam</subject><subject>Villages</subject><issn>0022-2585</issn><issn>1938-2928</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkd1rFDEUxYModq0--S4DglRk2iQzySSPdfELKn1w7WvIx502y8xkmmQE__tm3a2iiJKEkJvfuTnkIPSc4FOCZXO2HeEsb7UlbfcArYhsRE0lFQ_RCmNKa8oEO0JPUtpijAVp5WN01HCKBSV8hYZ1GGcdfQpTFfrqCmwOsdpEPc9-uq4-Q74JLlV9KV4u2YWyv_X5x5Ueik7fS74s8Rv4YdCThcpP1eZG-3Jw1W5deciTHp-iR70eEjw77Mfo6_t3m_XH-uLyw6f1-UVtWtzl2mljhex4w5wESam1WovGOGtZKxnXlvfC8NaYpsXGYS5AMCDa6DK5LOVjdLLvO8dwu0DKavTJws4chCUp2tGGMFYeK-jLP9BtWOJU3CkqaCMYFy37RV3rAZSf-pCjtrum6rzjgrOu_GyhTv9CleFg9DZM0PtS_03wZi-wMaQUoVdz9KOO3xXBapetKtmqQ7aFfnGwupgR3E_2PswCvNoDYZn_0-n1HjQ-FFv_ZO8AZKK7Qw</recordid><startdate>20221116</startdate><enddate>20221116</enddate><creator>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan</creator><creator>Duong, Tran Thanh</creator><creator>Chinh, Vu Duc</creator><creator>Thieu, Nguyen Quang</creator><creator>Hii, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Bangs, Michael J.</creator><creator>Aum-Aung, Boonserm</creator><creator>Suwonkerd, Wannapa</creator><creator>Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</creator><general>Entomological Society of America</general><general>Oxford University Press</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>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7097-7683</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7012-6889</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-5621</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221116</creationdate><title>Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam</title><author>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan ; Duong, Tran Thanh ; Chinh, Vu Duc ; Thieu, Nguyen Quang ; Hii, Jeffrey ; Bangs, Michael J. ; Aum-Aung, Boonserm ; Suwonkerd, Wannapa ; Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b407t-dabc897635d9e922ccaa83bdcc54956ac6f8b64bb340bd068e85e1abaaba69bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anopheles</topic><topic>Aquatic insects</topic><topic>Control</topic><topic>Culicidae</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Human performance</topic><topic>human-baited double net trap</topic><topic>human-baited host decoy trap</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Latin square design</topic><topic>Malaria</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mosquito Control - methods</topic><topic>Mosquito Vectors</topic><topic>Mosquitoes</topic><topic>outdoor biting mosquitoes</topic><topic>outdoor human landing catch</topic><topic>Standard error</topic><topic>Thailand - epidemiology</topic><topic>Trapping</topic><topic>Vector-borne diseases</topic><topic>VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES, SURVEILLANCE, PREVENTION</topic><topic>Vectors</topic><topic>Vietnam</topic><topic>Villages</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duong, Tran Thanh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chinh, Vu Duc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thieu, Nguyen Quang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hii, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bangs, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aum-Aung, Boonserm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suwonkerd, Wannapa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</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>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</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 One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</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>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Environmental 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>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical entomology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ngoenklan, Ratchadawan</au><au>Duong, Tran Thanh</au><au>Chinh, Vu Duc</au><au>Thieu, Nguyen Quang</au><au>Hii, Jeffrey</au><au>Bangs, Michael J.</au><au>Aum-Aung, Boonserm</au><au>Suwonkerd, Wannapa</au><au>Chareonviriyaphap, Theeraphap</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical entomology</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Entomol</addtitle><date>2022-11-16</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2139</spage><epage>2149</epage><pages>2139-2149</pages><issn>0022-2585</issn><eissn>1938-2928</eissn><abstract>The performances of the human-baited double net trap (HDNT) and the human-baited host decoy trap (HDT) methods were compared against the outdoor human landing catch (OHLC) method in Thailand and Vietnam. Two study sites were selected in each country: a rural village and a nearby forest setting. The three outdoor trap methods were rotated nightly between three set trapping positions, in a pre-assigned Latin square design. Volunteers were rotated following the trap rotation to avoid bias. The greatest number of adult mosquitoes was collected from the forest sites in both countries, showing Anopheles minimus (s.s.)Theobald (96.54%) and Anopheles dirus (s.s.) Peyton & Harrison (25.71%) as the primary malaria vectors in Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. At theThai forest site, OHLC collected significantly more anopheline mosquitoes per trap night than HDNT and HDT, with mean ± standard error values of 14.17 ± 4.42, 4.83 ± 1.56, and 4.44 ± 1.45, respectively, whilst HDNT and HDT were significantly less productive at 0.34 times and 0.31 times, respectively, than OHLC in capturing anopheline mosquitoes. However, there were no significant differences among the three methods of trapping malaria vectors for the village site. At the Vietnamese forest site, HDNT achieved the highest performance in collecting Anopheline mosquitoes at 1.54 times compared to OHLC, but there was no significant difference between the two traps. The results suggested HDNT could be a possible alternative trap to OHLC in this area. Although HDT was less efficient at attracting Anopheline mosquitoes, it was highly efficient at trapping culicine mosquitoes.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Entomological Society of America</pub><pmid>36208216</pmid><doi>10.1093/jme/tjac147</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7097-7683</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7012-6889</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-5621</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-2585 |
ispartof | Journal of medical entomology, 2022-11, Vol.59 (6), p.2139-2149 |
issn | 0022-2585 1938-2928 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2723155407 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Analysis Animals Anopheles Aquatic insects Control Culicidae Forests Human performance human-baited double net trap human-baited host decoy trap Humans Latin square design Malaria Methods Mosquito Control - methods Mosquito Vectors Mosquitoes outdoor biting mosquitoes outdoor human landing catch Standard error Thailand - epidemiology Trapping Vector-borne diseases VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES, SURVEILLANCE, PREVENTION Vectors Vietnam Villages |
title | Comparison of Vector Trapping Methods for Outdoor Biting Malaria Vector Surveillance in Thailand and Vietnam |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T02%3A33%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Vector%20Trapping%20Methods%20for%20Outdoor%20Biting%20Malaria%20Vector%20Surveillance%20in%20Thailand%20and%20Vietnam&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20entomology&rft.au=Ngoenklan,%20Ratchadawan&rft.date=2022-11-16&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2139&rft.epage=2149&rft.pages=2139-2149&rft.issn=0022-2585&rft.eissn=1938-2928&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jme/tjac147&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA768657081%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2823856845&rft_id=info:pmid/36208216&rft_galeid=A768657081&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jme/tjac147&rfr_iscdi=true |