Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review

To assess the inclusion of individuals’ perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women. We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2024-09, Vol.173, p.111468, Article 111468
Hauptverfasser: Medina-Aedo, Melixa, Günther, Matías, Arauz, Ibell, Domancic, Stefan, Diaz-Menai, Samanta, Gregorio, Sofia, León-García, Montserrat, Santero, Marilina, Pardo-Hernadez, Hector, Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 111468
container_title Journal of clinical epidemiology
container_volume 173
creator Medina-Aedo, Melixa
Günther, Matías
Arauz, Ibell
Domancic, Stefan
Diaz-Menai, Samanta
Gregorio, Sofia
León-García, Montserrat
Santero, Marilina
Pardo-Hernadez, Hector
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
description To assess the inclusion of individuals’ perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women. We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs. We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003). The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111468
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3082833794</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435624002245</els_id><sourcerecordid>3107443012</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-9e15b5ab141bcdf34208ff69130672c6c3d7b4cf7d50311b97246eea265df76e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1q3TAUhEVoSW7SvkIQdNFsfKujX7urlpC0gUA37VrI8nGQsS1XshPy9tXlJl1005UQfDMazRByCWwPDPSnYT_4Mcy4hD1nXO4BQOr6hOygNnWlGg5vyI7VjaqkUPqMnOc8MAaGGXVKzkTDeKMk25HxbvYxLTG5NcwPdIl5nXCOi9uyG-lTLJePmS6Y8oJ-DY-YaZjXSAuHschiDpkekgRf-IctdHiIlT9TR_NzgaZi7GnCx4BP78jb3o0Z37-cF-TX7c3P6-_V_Y9vd9df7yvPjVirBkG1yrUgofVdLyRndd_rBgTThnvtRWda6XvTKSYA2sZwqREd16rrjUZxQa6OvkuKvzfMq51C9jiObsa4ZStYzWshTCML-uEfdIhbmks6K4AZKQUDXih9pHz5cE7Y2yWFyaVnC8we9rCDfd3DHvawxz2K8PLFfmsn7P7KXgcowJcjgKWP0lGy2QecPXYhlcJtF8P_3vgD4zKhfg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3107443012</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Medina-Aedo, Melixa ; Günther, Matías ; Arauz, Ibell ; Domancic, Stefan ; Diaz-Menai, Samanta ; Gregorio, Sofia ; León-García, Montserrat ; Santero, Marilina ; Pardo-Hernadez, Hector ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><creatorcontrib>Medina-Aedo, Melixa ; Günther, Matías ; Arauz, Ibell ; Domancic, Stefan ; Diaz-Menai, Samanta ; Gregorio, Sofia ; León-García, Montserrat ; Santero, Marilina ; Pardo-Hernadez, Hector ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the inclusion of individuals’ perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women. We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs. We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003). The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111468</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39029540</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Clinical medicine ; Clinical practice guidelines ; Decision making ; Guideline as a topic ; Guidelines ; Health care ; Osteoporosis ; Patient participation ; Patient preference ; Patients ; Post-menopause ; Practice guidelines as topic ; Prevention ; Primary prevention ; Quality assessment ; Quality control ; Systematic review ; Women</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024-09, Vol.173, p.111468, Article 111468</ispartof><rights>2024 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2024. Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-9e15b5ab141bcdf34208ff69130672c6c3d7b4cf7d50311b97246eea265df76e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5371-0979 ; 0000-0002-9922-464X ; 0000-0002-8001-8504 ; 0000-0003-3714-0309</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/3107443012?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72341</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39029540$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Medina-Aedo, Melixa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Günther, Matías</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arauz, Ibell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Domancic, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz-Menai, Samanta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gregorio, Sofia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>León-García, Montserrat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santero, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardo-Hernadez, Hector</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><title>Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To assess the inclusion of individuals’ perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women. We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs. We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003). The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.</description><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical practice guidelines</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Guideline as a topic</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Osteoporosis</subject><subject>Patient participation</subject><subject>Patient preference</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Post-menopause</subject><subject>Practice guidelines as topic</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Primary prevention</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1q3TAUhEVoSW7SvkIQdNFsfKujX7urlpC0gUA37VrI8nGQsS1XshPy9tXlJl1005UQfDMazRByCWwPDPSnYT_4Mcy4hD1nXO4BQOr6hOygNnWlGg5vyI7VjaqkUPqMnOc8MAaGGXVKzkTDeKMk25HxbvYxLTG5NcwPdIl5nXCOi9uyG-lTLJePmS6Y8oJ-DY-YaZjXSAuHschiDpkekgRf-IctdHiIlT9TR_NzgaZi7GnCx4BP78jb3o0Z37-cF-TX7c3P6-_V_Y9vd9df7yvPjVirBkG1yrUgofVdLyRndd_rBgTThnvtRWda6XvTKSYA2sZwqREd16rrjUZxQa6OvkuKvzfMq51C9jiObsa4ZStYzWshTCML-uEfdIhbmks6K4AZKQUDXih9pHz5cE7Y2yWFyaVnC8we9rCDfd3DHvawxz2K8PLFfmsn7P7KXgcowJcjgKWP0lGy2QecPXYhlcJtF8P_3vgD4zKhfg</recordid><startdate>20240901</startdate><enddate>20240901</enddate><creator>Medina-Aedo, Melixa</creator><creator>Günther, Matías</creator><creator>Arauz, Ibell</creator><creator>Domancic, Stefan</creator><creator>Diaz-Menai, Samanta</creator><creator>Gregorio, Sofia</creator><creator>León-García, Montserrat</creator><creator>Santero, Marilina</creator><creator>Pardo-Hernadez, Hector</creator><creator>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5371-0979</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9922-464X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8001-8504</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3714-0309</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240901</creationdate><title>Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review</title><author>Medina-Aedo, Melixa ; Günther, Matías ; Arauz, Ibell ; Domancic, Stefan ; Diaz-Menai, Samanta ; Gregorio, Sofia ; León-García, Montserrat ; Santero, Marilina ; Pardo-Hernadez, Hector ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-9e15b5ab141bcdf34208ff69130672c6c3d7b4cf7d50311b97246eea265df76e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical practice guidelines</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Guideline as a topic</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Osteoporosis</topic><topic>Patient participation</topic><topic>Patient preference</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Post-menopause</topic><topic>Practice guidelines as topic</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Primary prevention</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Medina-Aedo, Melixa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Günther, Matías</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arauz, Ibell</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Domancic, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz-Menai, Samanta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gregorio, Sofia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>León-García, Montserrat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santero, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardo-Hernadez, Hector</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</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><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Medina-Aedo, Melixa</au><au>Günther, Matías</au><au>Arauz, Ibell</au><au>Domancic, Stefan</au><au>Diaz-Menai, Samanta</au><au>Gregorio, Sofia</au><au>León-García, Montserrat</au><au>Santero, Marilina</au><au>Pardo-Hernadez, Hector</au><au>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2024-09-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>173</volume><spage>111468</spage><pages>111468-</pages><artnum>111468</artnum><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To assess the inclusion of individuals’ perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women. We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women's perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs. We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women's perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003). The incorporation of women's perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>39029540</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111468</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5371-0979</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9922-464X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8001-8504</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3714-0309</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0895-4356
ispartof Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024-09, Vol.173, p.111468, Article 111468
issn 0895-4356
1878-5921
1878-5921
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3082833794
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects Clinical medicine
Clinical practice guidelines
Decision making
Guideline as a topic
Guidelines
Health care
Osteoporosis
Patient participation
Patient preference
Patients
Post-menopause
Practice guidelines as topic
Prevention
Primary prevention
Quality assessment
Quality control
Systematic review
Women
title Incorporating postmenopausal women's perspectives into osteoporosis clinical guidelines: a systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T14%3A49%3A45IST&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=Incorporating%20postmenopausal%20women's%20perspectives%20into%20osteoporosis%20clinical%20guidelines:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Medina-Aedo,%20Melixa&rft.date=2024-09-01&rft.volume=173&rft.spage=111468&rft.pages=111468-&rft.artnum=111468&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111468&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3107443012%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=3107443012&rft_id=info:pmid/39029540&rft_els_id=S0895435624002245&rfr_iscdi=true