Pigtail catheters vs large-bore chest tubes for management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in adults
It is still uncertain if large-bore chest tubes (20F-28F) is superior to pigtail catheter (10F-14F) in terms of the management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces (SSP).This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety associated with placement of large-bore chest tubes vs pigtail cathe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of emergency medicine 2006-11, Vol.24 (7), p.795-800 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 800 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 795 |
| container_title | The American journal of emergency medicine |
| container_volume | 24 |
| creator | Tsai, Wen-Kai Chen, Wei Lee, Jen-chih Cheng, Wei-Erh Chen, Chia-Hung Hsu, Wu-Huei Shih, Chuen-Ming |
| description | It is still uncertain if large-bore chest tubes (20F-28F) is superior to pigtail catheter (10F-14F) in terms of the management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces (SSP).This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety associated with placement of large-bore chest tubes vs pigtail catheters in adults experiencing the first episode of SSP. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 patients experiencing the first episode of SSP in a university hospital over a 3.5-year period who received treatment by either a large-bore chest tube or a pigtail catheter. Any patient who was younger than 18 years or experiencing mechanical ventilation–related barotraumas or pyopneumothorax was excluded from this study. Various parameters including demographical characteristics, size of pneumothorax, complications, time of pigtail or chest tube extubation, and length of hospital stay were collected and analyzed. Among the enrolled 91 patients, including 76 (83.5%) men with a mean age of 60 ± 19 years, 69 were initially treated with a pigtail, and 22 patients received conventional chest tubes. Fifty patients (72.5%) undergoing the pigtail drainage and 16 (72.7%) undergoing large-bore chest tube treatment of SSP were successfully treated (
P = .88). In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay, extubation time, recurrence rate, and complication. Pigtail catheters offer a safe and effective alternative for large-bore chest tubes to adult patients experiencing the first episode of SSP, and we strongly suggested that pigtail tube drainage should be considered as the initial treatment of choice. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.006 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68129942</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0735675706001422</els_id><sourcerecordid>68129942</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-9de57192453d1d6a66646db215a6f5c83bebe3dfcb95569d2c2346e65aa9d1043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUuLFDEUhQtRnJ7RP-BCAuLsqsy7KuBmGHzBgC50HVLJre40VUmbpAb896bohgEXrs7mO4dz72maNwR3BBP54diZIywdxVh2mHdVnjU7IhhtB9KT580O90y0shf9VXOd8xFjQrjgL5sr0mM1YKV2zfzD74vxM7KmHKBAyugxo9mkPbRjTIDsAXJBZR0hoykmtJhg9rBAKChOKIONwZn0B-VTDMUEiGtGpwDrEsshJmOrzQdk3DqX_Kp5MZk5w-uL3jS_Pn_6ef-1ffj-5dv93UNrOaGlVQ5ETxTlgjnipJFSculGSoSRk7ADG2EE5iY7KiGkctRSxiVIYYxyBHN209yec08p_l5rf734bGGez_20HAhVitMKvvsHPMY1hdpNE8zwgJkatjh6pmyKOSeY9Cn5pR5dIb0toY96W0JvS2jMdZVqenuJXscF3JPl8voKvL8AJlszT8kE6_MTNzAy9HLjPp45qB979JB0th6CBecT2KJd9P_r8ReTxagF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1030803984</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pigtail catheters vs large-bore chest tubes for management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in adults</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Tsai, Wen-Kai ; Chen, Wei ; Lee, Jen-chih ; Cheng, Wei-Erh ; Chen, Chia-Hung ; Hsu, Wu-Huei ; Shih, Chuen-Ming</creator><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Wen-Kai ; Chen, Wei ; Lee, Jen-chih ; Cheng, Wei-Erh ; Chen, Chia-Hung ; Hsu, Wu-Huei ; Shih, Chuen-Ming</creatorcontrib><description>It is still uncertain if large-bore chest tubes (20F-28F) is superior to pigtail catheter (10F-14F) in terms of the management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces (SSP).This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety associated with placement of large-bore chest tubes vs pigtail catheters in adults experiencing the first episode of SSP. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 patients experiencing the first episode of SSP in a university hospital over a 3.5-year period who received treatment by either a large-bore chest tube or a pigtail catheter. Any patient who was younger than 18 years or experiencing mechanical ventilation–related barotraumas or pyopneumothorax was excluded from this study. Various parameters including demographical characteristics, size of pneumothorax, complications, time of pigtail or chest tube extubation, and length of hospital stay were collected and analyzed. Among the enrolled 91 patients, including 76 (83.5%) men with a mean age of 60 ± 19 years, 69 were initially treated with a pigtail, and 22 patients received conventional chest tubes. Fifty patients (72.5%) undergoing the pigtail drainage and 16 (72.7%) undergoing large-bore chest tube treatment of SSP were successfully treated (
P = .88). In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay, extubation time, recurrence rate, and complication. Pigtail catheters offer a safe and effective alternative for large-bore chest tubes to adult patients experiencing the first episode of SSP, and we strongly suggested that pigtail tube drainage should be considered as the initial treatment of choice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-6757</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8171</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17098099</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJEMEN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Biological and medical sciences ; Blood pressure ; Catheterization ; Catheters ; Chest Tubes ; Drainage - instrumentation ; Emergency and intensive care: metabolism and nutrition disorders. Enteral and parenteral nutrition ; Emergency and intensive care: techniques, logistics ; Emergency medical care ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Intensive care medicine ; Male ; Medical instruments ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Ostomy ; Pathogenesis ; Perfusions. Catheterizations. Hyperbaric oxygenotherapy ; Physicians ; Pneumothorax - surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Tuberculosis ; Ventilation</subject><ispartof>The American journal of emergency medicine, 2006-11, Vol.24 (7), p.795-800</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-9de57192453d1d6a66646db215a6f5c83bebe3dfcb95569d2c2346e65aa9d1043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-9de57192453d1d6a66646db215a6f5c83bebe3dfcb95569d2c2346e65aa9d1043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675706001422$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18318769$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17098099$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Wen-Kai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jen-chih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Wei-Erh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Chia-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Wu-Huei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shih, Chuen-Ming</creatorcontrib><title>Pigtail catheters vs large-bore chest tubes for management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in adults</title><title>The American journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><description>It is still uncertain if large-bore chest tubes (20F-28F) is superior to pigtail catheter (10F-14F) in terms of the management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces (SSP).This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety associated with placement of large-bore chest tubes vs pigtail catheters in adults experiencing the first episode of SSP. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 patients experiencing the first episode of SSP in a university hospital over a 3.5-year period who received treatment by either a large-bore chest tube or a pigtail catheter. Any patient who was younger than 18 years or experiencing mechanical ventilation–related barotraumas or pyopneumothorax was excluded from this study. Various parameters including demographical characteristics, size of pneumothorax, complications, time of pigtail or chest tube extubation, and length of hospital stay were collected and analyzed. Among the enrolled 91 patients, including 76 (83.5%) men with a mean age of 60 ± 19 years, 69 were initially treated with a pigtail, and 22 patients received conventional chest tubes. Fifty patients (72.5%) undergoing the pigtail drainage and 16 (72.7%) undergoing large-bore chest tube treatment of SSP were successfully treated (
P = .88). In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay, extubation time, recurrence rate, and complication. Pigtail catheters offer a safe and effective alternative for large-bore chest tubes to adult patients experiencing the first episode of SSP, and we strongly suggested that pigtail tube drainage should be considered as the initial treatment of choice.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Catheterization</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Chest Tubes</subject><subject>Drainage - instrumentation</subject><subject>Emergency and intensive care: metabolism and nutrition disorders. Enteral and parenteral nutrition</subject><subject>Emergency and intensive care: techniques, logistics</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hospitals, University</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive care medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical instruments</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Pathogenesis</subject><subject>Perfusions. Catheterizations. Hyperbaric oxygenotherapy</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Pneumothorax - surgery</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Tuberculosis</subject><subject>Ventilation</subject><issn>0735-6757</issn><issn>1532-8171</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUuLFDEUhQtRnJ7RP-BCAuLsqsy7KuBmGHzBgC50HVLJre40VUmbpAb896bohgEXrs7mO4dz72maNwR3BBP54diZIywdxVh2mHdVnjU7IhhtB9KT580O90y0shf9VXOd8xFjQrjgL5sr0mM1YKV2zfzD74vxM7KmHKBAyugxo9mkPbRjTIDsAXJBZR0hoykmtJhg9rBAKChOKIONwZn0B-VTDMUEiGtGpwDrEsshJmOrzQdk3DqX_Kp5MZk5w-uL3jS_Pn_6ef-1ffj-5dv93UNrOaGlVQ5ETxTlgjnipJFSculGSoSRk7ADG2EE5iY7KiGkctRSxiVIYYxyBHN209yec08p_l5rf734bGGez_20HAhVitMKvvsHPMY1hdpNE8zwgJkatjh6pmyKOSeY9Cn5pR5dIb0toY96W0JvS2jMdZVqenuJXscF3JPl8voKvL8AJlszT8kE6_MTNzAy9HLjPp45qB979JB0th6CBecT2KJd9P_r8ReTxagF</recordid><startdate>20061101</startdate><enddate>20061101</enddate><creator>Tsai, Wen-Kai</creator><creator>Chen, Wei</creator><creator>Lee, Jen-chih</creator><creator>Cheng, Wei-Erh</creator><creator>Chen, Chia-Hung</creator><creator>Hsu, Wu-Huei</creator><creator>Shih, Chuen-Ming</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</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>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</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>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20061101</creationdate><title>Pigtail catheters vs large-bore chest tubes for management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in adults</title><author>Tsai, Wen-Kai ; Chen, Wei ; Lee, Jen-chih ; Cheng, Wei-Erh ; Chen, Chia-Hung ; Hsu, Wu-Huei ; Shih, Chuen-Ming</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-9de57192453d1d6a66646db215a6f5c83bebe3dfcb95569d2c2346e65aa9d1043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Catheterization</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Chest Tubes</topic><topic>Drainage - instrumentation</topic><topic>Emergency and intensive care: metabolism and nutrition disorders. Enteral and parenteral nutrition</topic><topic>Emergency and intensive care: techniques, logistics</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hospitals, University</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive care medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical instruments</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Pathogenesis</topic><topic>Perfusions. Catheterizations. Hyperbaric oxygenotherapy</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Pneumothorax - surgery</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Tuberculosis</topic><topic>Ventilation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Wen-Kai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jen-chih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Wei-Erh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Chia-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Wu-Huei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shih, Chuen-Ming</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</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 Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</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>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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 Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tsai, Wen-Kai</au><au>Chen, Wei</au><au>Lee, Jen-chih</au><au>Cheng, Wei-Erh</au><au>Chen, Chia-Hung</au><au>Hsu, Wu-Huei</au><au>Shih, Chuen-Ming</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pigtail catheters vs large-bore chest tubes for management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in adults</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><date>2006-11-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>795</spage><epage>800</epage><pages>795-800</pages><issn>0735-6757</issn><eissn>1532-8171</eissn><coden>AJEMEN</coden><abstract>It is still uncertain if large-bore chest tubes (20F-28F) is superior to pigtail catheter (10F-14F) in terms of the management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces (SSP).This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety associated with placement of large-bore chest tubes vs pigtail catheters in adults experiencing the first episode of SSP. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 patients experiencing the first episode of SSP in a university hospital over a 3.5-year period who received treatment by either a large-bore chest tube or a pigtail catheter. Any patient who was younger than 18 years or experiencing mechanical ventilation–related barotraumas or pyopneumothorax was excluded from this study. Various parameters including demographical characteristics, size of pneumothorax, complications, time of pigtail or chest tube extubation, and length of hospital stay were collected and analyzed. Among the enrolled 91 patients, including 76 (83.5%) men with a mean age of 60 ± 19 years, 69 were initially treated with a pigtail, and 22 patients received conventional chest tubes. Fifty patients (72.5%) undergoing the pigtail drainage and 16 (72.7%) undergoing large-bore chest tube treatment of SSP were successfully treated (
P = .88). In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay, extubation time, recurrence rate, and complication. Pigtail catheters offer a safe and effective alternative for large-bore chest tubes to adult patients experiencing the first episode of SSP, and we strongly suggested that pigtail tube drainage should be considered as the initial treatment of choice.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17098099</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.006</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0735-6757 |
| ispartof | The American journal of emergency medicine, 2006-11, Vol.24 (7), p.795-800 |
| issn | 0735-6757 1532-8171 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68129942 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Biological and medical sciences Blood pressure Catheterization Catheters Chest Tubes Drainage - instrumentation Emergency and intensive care: metabolism and nutrition disorders. Enteral and parenteral nutrition Emergency and intensive care: techniques, logistics Emergency medical care Equipment Design Female Follow-Up Studies Hospitals, University Humans Intensive care medicine Male Medical instruments Medical sciences Middle Aged Ostomy Pathogenesis Perfusions. Catheterizations. Hyperbaric oxygenotherapy Physicians Pneumothorax - surgery Retrospective Studies Treatment Outcome Tuberculosis Ventilation |
| title | Pigtail catheters vs large-bore chest tubes for management of secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in adults |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T16%3A25%3A54IST&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=Pigtail%20catheters%20vs%20large-bore%20chest%20tubes%20for%20management%20of%20secondary%20spontaneous%20pneumothoraces%20in%20adults&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Tsai,%20Wen-Kai&rft.date=2006-11-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=795&rft.epage=800&rft.pages=795-800&rft.issn=0735-6757&rft.eissn=1532-8171&rft.coden=AJEMEN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68129942%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=1030803984&rft_id=info:pmid/17098099&rft_els_id=S0735675706001422&rfr_iscdi=true |