Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis
Background The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Method...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Inflammopharmacology 2024-02, Vol.32 (1), p.335-354 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 354 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 335 |
container_title | Inflammopharmacology |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Li, Mei-xuan Li, Yan-fei Xing, Xin Niu, Jun-qiang Yao, Liang Lu, Meng-ying Guo, Ke Ma, Mi-na Wu, Xiao-tian Ma, Ning Li, Dan Li, Zi-jun Guan, Ling Wang, Xiao-man Pan, Bei Shang, Wen-ru Ji, Jing Song, Zhong-yang Zhang, Zhi-ming Wang, Yong-feng Yang, Ke-hu |
description | Background
The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.
Results
We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI − 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI − 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84–1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60–0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09–1.28).
Conclusion
Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10787-023-01398-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2902938541</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2902938541</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-aec1010dd321f3c7de1c397f865f52d20df7d7bc43d517be8fb98ee266e221b63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtuFDEQRS1ERIbAD7BAXrIx8aPbD3ZoeI0UKZvA1nK3y4OjbnfHdkdKvh7DBJasSqo690p1EHrD6HtGqbosjCqtCOWCUCaMJt0ztGO91KSXVD9HO2p4Tzpp-Dl6WcotpVQqaV6gc6GpUVr3O3R3SDW7e0jLVnCc5y0tx2kZtikmHJaMawZXZ0gVLwH_XMoaq5viI3i8v_5x-ESYwaursQHlA3YJw330kEbAs1vXmI5t5_EM1RGX3PRQYnmFzoKbCrx-mhfo-5fPN_tv5Or662H_8YqM3OhKHIyMMuq94CyIUXlgozAqaNmHnntOfVBeDWMnfM_UADoMRgNwKYFzNkhxgd6dete83G1Qqp1jGWGaXIL2rOWGciN037GG8hM65qWUDMGuOc4uP1hG7W_V9qTaNtX2j2rbtdDbp_5tmMH_i_x12wBxAko7pSNke7tsuVko_6v9BVAHi6U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2902938541</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Li, Mei-xuan ; Li, Yan-fei ; Xing, Xin ; Niu, Jun-qiang ; Yao, Liang ; Lu, Meng-ying ; Guo, Ke ; Ma, Mi-na ; Wu, Xiao-tian ; Ma, Ning ; Li, Dan ; Li, Zi-jun ; Guan, Ling ; Wang, Xiao-man ; Pan, Bei ; Shang, Wen-ru ; Ji, Jing ; Song, Zhong-yang ; Zhang, Zhi-ming ; Wang, Yong-feng ; Yang, Ke-hu</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Mei-xuan ; Li, Yan-fei ; Xing, Xin ; Niu, Jun-qiang ; Yao, Liang ; Lu, Meng-ying ; Guo, Ke ; Ma, Mi-na ; Wu, Xiao-tian ; Ma, Ning ; Li, Dan ; Li, Zi-jun ; Guan, Ling ; Wang, Xiao-man ; Pan, Bei ; Shang, Wen-ru ; Ji, Jing ; Song, Zhong-yang ; Zhang, Zhi-ming ; Wang, Yong-feng ; Yang, Ke-hu</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.
Results
We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI − 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI − 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84–1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60–0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09–1.28).
Conclusion
Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0925-4692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1568-5608</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10787-023-01398-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38097885</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Allergology ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Dermatology ; Gastroenterology ; Immunology ; Pharmacology/Toxicology ; Review ; Rheumatology</subject><ispartof>Inflammopharmacology, 2024-02, Vol.32 (1), p.335-354</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-aec1010dd321f3c7de1c397f865f52d20df7d7bc43d517be8fb98ee266e221b63</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7864-3012</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10787-023-01398-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10787-023-01398-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38097885$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Mei-xuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yan-fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xing, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niu, Jun-qiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yao, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Meng-ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Ke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Mi-na</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Xiao-tian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Ning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zi-jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guan, Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiao-man</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Bei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shang, Wen-ru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ji, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Zhong-yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Zhi-ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yong-feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Ke-hu</creatorcontrib><title>Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis</title><title>Inflammopharmacology</title><addtitle>Inflammopharmacol</addtitle><addtitle>Inflammopharmacology</addtitle><description>Background
The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.
Results
We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI − 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI − 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84–1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60–0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09–1.28).
Conclusion
Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.</description><subject>Allergology</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Immunology</subject><subject>Pharmacology/Toxicology</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Rheumatology</subject><issn>0925-4692</issn><issn>1568-5608</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtuFDEQRS1ERIbAD7BAXrIx8aPbD3ZoeI0UKZvA1nK3y4OjbnfHdkdKvh7DBJasSqo690p1EHrD6HtGqbosjCqtCOWCUCaMJt0ztGO91KSXVD9HO2p4Tzpp-Dl6WcotpVQqaV6gc6GpUVr3O3R3SDW7e0jLVnCc5y0tx2kZtikmHJaMawZXZ0gVLwH_XMoaq5viI3i8v_5x-ESYwaursQHlA3YJw330kEbAs1vXmI5t5_EM1RGX3PRQYnmFzoKbCrx-mhfo-5fPN_tv5Or662H_8YqM3OhKHIyMMuq94CyIUXlgozAqaNmHnntOfVBeDWMnfM_UADoMRgNwKYFzNkhxgd6dete83G1Qqp1jGWGaXIL2rOWGciN037GG8hM65qWUDMGuOc4uP1hG7W_V9qTaNtX2j2rbtdDbp_5tmMH_i_x12wBxAko7pSNke7tsuVko_6v9BVAHi6U</recordid><startdate>20240201</startdate><enddate>20240201</enddate><creator>Li, Mei-xuan</creator><creator>Li, Yan-fei</creator><creator>Xing, Xin</creator><creator>Niu, Jun-qiang</creator><creator>Yao, Liang</creator><creator>Lu, Meng-ying</creator><creator>Guo, Ke</creator><creator>Ma, Mi-na</creator><creator>Wu, Xiao-tian</creator><creator>Ma, Ning</creator><creator>Li, Dan</creator><creator>Li, Zi-jun</creator><creator>Guan, Ling</creator><creator>Wang, Xiao-man</creator><creator>Pan, Bei</creator><creator>Shang, Wen-ru</creator><creator>Ji, Jing</creator><creator>Song, Zhong-yang</creator><creator>Zhang, Zhi-ming</creator><creator>Wang, Yong-feng</creator><creator>Yang, Ke-hu</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7864-3012</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240201</creationdate><title>Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis</title><author>Li, Mei-xuan ; Li, Yan-fei ; Xing, Xin ; Niu, Jun-qiang ; Yao, Liang ; Lu, Meng-ying ; Guo, Ke ; Ma, Mi-na ; Wu, Xiao-tian ; Ma, Ning ; Li, Dan ; Li, Zi-jun ; Guan, Ling ; Wang, Xiao-man ; Pan, Bei ; Shang, Wen-ru ; Ji, Jing ; Song, Zhong-yang ; Zhang, Zhi-ming ; Wang, Yong-feng ; Yang, Ke-hu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-aec1010dd321f3c7de1c397f865f52d20df7d7bc43d517be8fb98ee266e221b63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Allergology</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Immunology</topic><topic>Pharmacology/Toxicology</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Rheumatology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Mei-xuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yan-fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xing, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Niu, Jun-qiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yao, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Meng-ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Ke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Mi-na</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Xiao-tian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Ning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zi-jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guan, Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiao-man</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pan, Bei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shang, Wen-ru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ji, Jing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Zhong-yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Zhi-ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yong-feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Ke-hu</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Inflammopharmacology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Mei-xuan</au><au>Li, Yan-fei</au><au>Xing, Xin</au><au>Niu, Jun-qiang</au><au>Yao, Liang</au><au>Lu, Meng-ying</au><au>Guo, Ke</au><au>Ma, Mi-na</au><au>Wu, Xiao-tian</au><au>Ma, Ning</au><au>Li, Dan</au><au>Li, Zi-jun</au><au>Guan, Ling</au><au>Wang, Xiao-man</au><au>Pan, Bei</au><au>Shang, Wen-ru</au><au>Ji, Jing</au><au>Song, Zhong-yang</au><au>Zhang, Zhi-ming</au><au>Wang, Yong-feng</au><au>Yang, Ke-hu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Inflammopharmacology</jtitle><stitle>Inflammopharmacol</stitle><addtitle>Inflammopharmacology</addtitle><date>2024-02-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>335</spage><epage>354</epage><pages>335-354</pages><issn>0925-4692</issn><eissn>1568-5608</eissn><abstract>Background
The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.
Results
We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI − 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI − 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84–1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60–0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09–1.28).
Conclusion
Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>38097885</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10787-023-01398-4</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7864-3012</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0925-4692 |
ispartof | Inflammopharmacology, 2024-02, Vol.32 (1), p.335-354 |
issn | 0925-4692 1568-5608 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2902938541 |
source | SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Allergology Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Dermatology Gastroenterology Immunology Pharmacology/Toxicology Review Rheumatology |
title | Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T02%3A47%3A19IST&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=Intravenous%20immunoglobulin%20for%20treatment%20of%20hospitalized%20COVID-19%20patients:%20an%20evidence%20mapping%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Inflammopharmacology&rft.au=Li,%20Mei-xuan&rft.date=2024-02-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=335&rft.epage=354&rft.pages=335-354&rft.issn=0925-4692&rft.eissn=1568-5608&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10787-023-01398-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2902938541%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=2902938541&rft_id=info:pmid/38097885&rfr_iscdi=true |