Mass screening for antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dairy cows in northern New South Wales
Objective To describe aspects of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli shed in the faeces of milking cows in a dairying region of New South Wales. Design A survey based on multi‐stage sampling with repeated measures made within herds for estimating within‐herd correlation...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Australian veterinary journal 2005-11, Vol.83 (11), p.688-694 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 694 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 688 |
container_title | Australian veterinary journal |
container_volume | 83 |
creator | Jordan, D Morris, S.G Gill, P Andersen, L.M Chowdhury, A Stevenson, A.E Spence, S.A |
description | Objective To describe aspects of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli shed in the faeces of milking cows in a dairying region of New South Wales.
Design A survey based on multi‐stage sampling with repeated measures made within herds for estimating within‐herd correlation of resistance status, and with repeated measures made on identical specimens for estimating test‐retest reliability.
Procedure From a population of 110 dairy herds, 30 were selected at random and from each herd between 5 and 10 faecal specimens were obtained from fresh manure pats. E coli from faecal specimens were grown on hydrophobic grid membrane filters (HGMF) and replicated onto chromogenic agar and agar containing antimicrobials (gentamicin, ampicillin, tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole). Image analysis was used to assess colony growth. Data were analysed descriptively, by generalised linear mixed models and by Taylor series linearisation to account for attributes of the survey design.
Results Of the 10,279 E coli isolates assessed, 91% expressed no resistance, 7.3% were resistant to sulfamethoxazole, 3.6% to tetracycline, 2.2% to ampicillin and 0.09% to gentamicin. The most common multiple resistance phenotype was ampicillin‐tetracycline‐sulfamethoxazole (1.8% of isolates). Most multiple resistant isolates appeared clustered within particular herds but were too rare to obtain valid estimates of variance, confidence intervals or intra‐herd correlation. The estimated proportion of isolates in the population that were susceptible to all four antimicrobials was 97% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 55% of cows had no resistance detected in faecal E coli (95% CI: 27% to 83%). Within‐herd correlation of shedding status (any resistance pattern) was absent and test‐retest reliability of the measurement system was estimated to be at the lower end of good (0.40) but increased to excellent (0.89) after excluding sulfamethoxazole resistance, which had a greater measurement error.
Conclusion Antimicrobial resistance was uncommon in E coli in the population of dairy cows studied. HGMF and image analysis is an effective tool for detecting rare forms of resistant E coli that are not uniformly distributed in livestock populations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13051.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68843266</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68843266</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4348-33293b67acf26ccf9fd930519b6f7e81a32042a048d60dd81da2193a209f98b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkUtP3DAUhS1UBFPoX2itLtgl-BE7SReVEIIplEeloaW7K8exGU8zCdgZzcy_x1FGdI031vX97rHPMUJfKUlpXKeLlOaCJqSgPGWEiLSvKCeCpps9NHlrfUATEpsJyRg_RB9DWBDCc8HEATqkklMhZTlB5laFgIP2xrSufcK281i1vVs67bvKqQZ7E1zo4xm-CHpuvNNzp7DuGoddi2vl_DZW6zBUbef7iLT4zqzxrFv1c_yoGhOO0b5VTTCfdvsReri8eDj_kdzcT6_Oz24SnfGsSDhnJa9krrRlUmtb2rocjJWVtLkpqOIsulEkK2pJ6rqgtWK05IqR0pZFxY_QySj77LuXlQk9LF3QpmlUa7pVAFkUGWdSRvDbCEaTIXhj4dm7pfJboASGjGEBQ5AwBAlDxrDLGDZx-PPullW1NPX_0V2oEfg-AmvXmO07pOHsz3V8YxRIRoEYvNm8CSj_D2Qe_xAe76ZwPeW_fpLsL8wi_2XkrepAPXkX4PeMkahKiRCSCP4KQqGkwA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68843266</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mass screening for antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dairy cows in northern New South Wales</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Jordan, D ; Morris, S.G ; Gill, P ; Andersen, L.M ; Chowdhury, A ; Stevenson, A.E ; Spence, S.A</creator><creatorcontrib>Jordan, D ; Morris, S.G ; Gill, P ; Andersen, L.M ; Chowdhury, A ; Stevenson, A.E ; Spence, S.A</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To describe aspects of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli shed in the faeces of milking cows in a dairying region of New South Wales.
Design A survey based on multi‐stage sampling with repeated measures made within herds for estimating within‐herd correlation of resistance status, and with repeated measures made on identical specimens for estimating test‐retest reliability.
Procedure From a population of 110 dairy herds, 30 were selected at random and from each herd between 5 and 10 faecal specimens were obtained from fresh manure pats. E coli from faecal specimens were grown on hydrophobic grid membrane filters (HGMF) and replicated onto chromogenic agar and agar containing antimicrobials (gentamicin, ampicillin, tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole). Image analysis was used to assess colony growth. Data were analysed descriptively, by generalised linear mixed models and by Taylor series linearisation to account for attributes of the survey design.
Results Of the 10,279 E coli isolates assessed, 91% expressed no resistance, 7.3% were resistant to sulfamethoxazole, 3.6% to tetracycline, 2.2% to ampicillin and 0.09% to gentamicin. The most common multiple resistance phenotype was ampicillin‐tetracycline‐sulfamethoxazole (1.8% of isolates). Most multiple resistant isolates appeared clustered within particular herds but were too rare to obtain valid estimates of variance, confidence intervals or intra‐herd correlation. The estimated proportion of isolates in the population that were susceptible to all four antimicrobials was 97% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 55% of cows had no resistance detected in faecal E coli (95% CI: 27% to 83%). Within‐herd correlation of shedding status (any resistance pattern) was absent and test‐retest reliability of the measurement system was estimated to be at the lower end of good (0.40) but increased to excellent (0.89) after excluding sulfamethoxazole resistance, which had a greater measurement error.
Conclusion Antimicrobial resistance was uncommon in E coli in the population of dairy cows studied. HGMF and image analysis is an effective tool for detecting rare forms of resistant E coli that are not uniformly distributed in livestock populations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0005-0423</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-0813</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13051.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16315669</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>ampicillin ; Animals ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use ; antimicrobial agents ; Cattle ; cattle diseases ; Cattle Diseases - drug therapy ; Cattle Diseases - microbiology ; Colony Count, Microbial - methods ; Colony Count, Microbial - veterinary ; dairy cows ; Dairying ; defense mechanisms ; disease control ; disease control programs ; disease detection ; disease surveillance ; drug resistance ; Drug Resistance, Bacterial ; epidemiology ; Escherichia coli ; Escherichia coli - drug effects ; Escherichia coli Infections - drug therapy ; Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology ; Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary ; Escherichia infections ; feces ; Feces - microbiology ; Female ; filtration ; gentamicin ; herd health ; host-pathogen relationships ; image analysis ; Mass Screening - methods ; Mass Screening - veterinary ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary ; multiple drug resistance ; New South Wales ; program evaluation ; screening ; sulfamethoxazole ; tetracycline</subject><ispartof>Australian veterinary journal, 2005-11, Vol.83 (11), p.688-694</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4348-33293b67acf26ccf9fd930519b6f7e81a32042a048d60dd81da2193a209f98b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4348-33293b67acf26ccf9fd930519b6f7e81a32042a048d60dd81da2193a209f98b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1751-0813.2005.tb13051.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1751-0813.2005.tb13051.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16315669$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jordan, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, S.G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gill, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersen, L.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chowdhury, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevenson, A.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spence, S.A</creatorcontrib><title>Mass screening for antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dairy cows in northern New South Wales</title><title>Australian veterinary journal</title><addtitle>Aust Vet J</addtitle><description>Objective To describe aspects of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli shed in the faeces of milking cows in a dairying region of New South Wales.
Design A survey based on multi‐stage sampling with repeated measures made within herds for estimating within‐herd correlation of resistance status, and with repeated measures made on identical specimens for estimating test‐retest reliability.
Procedure From a population of 110 dairy herds, 30 were selected at random and from each herd between 5 and 10 faecal specimens were obtained from fresh manure pats. E coli from faecal specimens were grown on hydrophobic grid membrane filters (HGMF) and replicated onto chromogenic agar and agar containing antimicrobials (gentamicin, ampicillin, tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole). Image analysis was used to assess colony growth. Data were analysed descriptively, by generalised linear mixed models and by Taylor series linearisation to account for attributes of the survey design.
Results Of the 10,279 E coli isolates assessed, 91% expressed no resistance, 7.3% were resistant to sulfamethoxazole, 3.6% to tetracycline, 2.2% to ampicillin and 0.09% to gentamicin. The most common multiple resistance phenotype was ampicillin‐tetracycline‐sulfamethoxazole (1.8% of isolates). Most multiple resistant isolates appeared clustered within particular herds but were too rare to obtain valid estimates of variance, confidence intervals or intra‐herd correlation. The estimated proportion of isolates in the population that were susceptible to all four antimicrobials was 97% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 55% of cows had no resistance detected in faecal E coli (95% CI: 27% to 83%). Within‐herd correlation of shedding status (any resistance pattern) was absent and test‐retest reliability of the measurement system was estimated to be at the lower end of good (0.40) but increased to excellent (0.89) after excluding sulfamethoxazole resistance, which had a greater measurement error.
Conclusion Antimicrobial resistance was uncommon in E coli in the population of dairy cows studied. HGMF and image analysis is an effective tool for detecting rare forms of resistant E coli that are not uniformly distributed in livestock populations.</description><subject>ampicillin</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>antimicrobial agents</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>cattle diseases</subject><subject>Cattle Diseases - drug therapy</subject><subject>Cattle Diseases - microbiology</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial - methods</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial - veterinary</subject><subject>dairy cows</subject><subject>Dairying</subject><subject>defense mechanisms</subject><subject>disease control</subject><subject>disease control programs</subject><subject>disease detection</subject><subject>disease surveillance</subject><subject>drug resistance</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Bacterial</subject><subject>epidemiology</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Escherichia coli - drug effects</subject><subject>Escherichia coli Infections - drug therapy</subject><subject>Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary</subject><subject>Escherichia infections</subject><subject>feces</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>filtration</subject><subject>gentamicin</subject><subject>herd health</subject><subject>host-pathogen relationships</subject><subject>image analysis</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - veterinary</subject><subject>Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary</subject><subject>multiple drug resistance</subject><subject>New South Wales</subject><subject>program evaluation</subject><subject>screening</subject><subject>sulfamethoxazole</subject><subject>tetracycline</subject><issn>0005-0423</issn><issn>1751-0813</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkUtP3DAUhS1UBFPoX2itLtgl-BE7SReVEIIplEeloaW7K8exGU8zCdgZzcy_x1FGdI031vX97rHPMUJfKUlpXKeLlOaCJqSgPGWEiLSvKCeCpps9NHlrfUATEpsJyRg_RB9DWBDCc8HEATqkklMhZTlB5laFgIP2xrSufcK281i1vVs67bvKqQZ7E1zo4xm-CHpuvNNzp7DuGoddi2vl_DZW6zBUbef7iLT4zqzxrFv1c_yoGhOO0b5VTTCfdvsReri8eDj_kdzcT6_Oz24SnfGsSDhnJa9krrRlUmtb2rocjJWVtLkpqOIsulEkK2pJ6rqgtWK05IqR0pZFxY_QySj77LuXlQk9LF3QpmlUa7pVAFkUGWdSRvDbCEaTIXhj4dm7pfJboASGjGEBQ5AwBAlDxrDLGDZx-PPullW1NPX_0V2oEfg-AmvXmO07pOHsz3V8YxRIRoEYvNm8CSj_D2Qe_xAe76ZwPeW_fpLsL8wi_2XkrepAPXkX4PeMkahKiRCSCP4KQqGkwA</recordid><startdate>200511</startdate><enddate>200511</enddate><creator>Jordan, D</creator><creator>Morris, S.G</creator><creator>Gill, P</creator><creator>Andersen, L.M</creator><creator>Chowdhury, A</creator><creator>Stevenson, A.E</creator><creator>Spence, S.A</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200511</creationdate><title>Mass screening for antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dairy cows in northern New South Wales</title><author>Jordan, D ; Morris, S.G ; Gill, P ; Andersen, L.M ; Chowdhury, A ; Stevenson, A.E ; Spence, S.A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4348-33293b67acf26ccf9fd930519b6f7e81a32042a048d60dd81da2193a209f98b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>ampicillin</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>antimicrobial agents</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>cattle diseases</topic><topic>Cattle Diseases - drug therapy</topic><topic>Cattle Diseases - microbiology</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial - methods</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial - veterinary</topic><topic>dairy cows</topic><topic>Dairying</topic><topic>defense mechanisms</topic><topic>disease control</topic><topic>disease control programs</topic><topic>disease detection</topic><topic>disease surveillance</topic><topic>drug resistance</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Bacterial</topic><topic>epidemiology</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Escherichia coli - drug effects</topic><topic>Escherichia coli Infections - drug therapy</topic><topic>Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary</topic><topic>Escherichia infections</topic><topic>feces</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>filtration</topic><topic>gentamicin</topic><topic>herd health</topic><topic>host-pathogen relationships</topic><topic>image analysis</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - veterinary</topic><topic>Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary</topic><topic>multiple drug resistance</topic><topic>New South Wales</topic><topic>program evaluation</topic><topic>screening</topic><topic>sulfamethoxazole</topic><topic>tetracycline</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jordan, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, S.G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gill, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersen, L.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chowdhury, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevenson, A.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spence, S.A</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><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>Australian veterinary journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jordan, D</au><au>Morris, S.G</au><au>Gill, P</au><au>Andersen, L.M</au><au>Chowdhury, A</au><au>Stevenson, A.E</au><au>Spence, S.A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mass screening for antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dairy cows in northern New South Wales</atitle><jtitle>Australian veterinary journal</jtitle><addtitle>Aust Vet J</addtitle><date>2005-11</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>688</spage><epage>694</epage><pages>688-694</pages><issn>0005-0423</issn><eissn>1751-0813</eissn><abstract>Objective To describe aspects of the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli shed in the faeces of milking cows in a dairying region of New South Wales.
Design A survey based on multi‐stage sampling with repeated measures made within herds for estimating within‐herd correlation of resistance status, and with repeated measures made on identical specimens for estimating test‐retest reliability.
Procedure From a population of 110 dairy herds, 30 were selected at random and from each herd between 5 and 10 faecal specimens were obtained from fresh manure pats. E coli from faecal specimens were grown on hydrophobic grid membrane filters (HGMF) and replicated onto chromogenic agar and agar containing antimicrobials (gentamicin, ampicillin, tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole). Image analysis was used to assess colony growth. Data were analysed descriptively, by generalised linear mixed models and by Taylor series linearisation to account for attributes of the survey design.
Results Of the 10,279 E coli isolates assessed, 91% expressed no resistance, 7.3% were resistant to sulfamethoxazole, 3.6% to tetracycline, 2.2% to ampicillin and 0.09% to gentamicin. The most common multiple resistance phenotype was ampicillin‐tetracycline‐sulfamethoxazole (1.8% of isolates). Most multiple resistant isolates appeared clustered within particular herds but were too rare to obtain valid estimates of variance, confidence intervals or intra‐herd correlation. The estimated proportion of isolates in the population that were susceptible to all four antimicrobials was 97% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 55% of cows had no resistance detected in faecal E coli (95% CI: 27% to 83%). Within‐herd correlation of shedding status (any resistance pattern) was absent and test‐retest reliability of the measurement system was estimated to be at the lower end of good (0.40) but increased to excellent (0.89) after excluding sulfamethoxazole resistance, which had a greater measurement error.
Conclusion Antimicrobial resistance was uncommon in E coli in the population of dairy cows studied. HGMF and image analysis is an effective tool for detecting rare forms of resistant E coli that are not uniformly distributed in livestock populations.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>16315669</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13051.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0005-0423 |
ispartof | Australian veterinary journal, 2005-11, Vol.83 (11), p.688-694 |
issn | 0005-0423 1751-0813 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68843266 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | ampicillin Animals Anti-Bacterial Agents - pharmacology Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use antimicrobial agents Cattle cattle diseases Cattle Diseases - drug therapy Cattle Diseases - microbiology Colony Count, Microbial - methods Colony Count, Microbial - veterinary dairy cows Dairying defense mechanisms disease control disease control programs disease detection disease surveillance drug resistance Drug Resistance, Bacterial epidemiology Escherichia coli Escherichia coli - drug effects Escherichia coli Infections - drug therapy Escherichia coli Infections - microbiology Escherichia coli Infections - veterinary Escherichia infections feces Feces - microbiology Female filtration gentamicin herd health host-pathogen relationships image analysis Mass Screening - methods Mass Screening - veterinary Microbial Sensitivity Tests - veterinary multiple drug resistance New South Wales program evaluation screening sulfamethoxazole tetracycline |
title | Mass screening for antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in dairy cows in northern New South Wales |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T12%3A22%3A53IST&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=Mass%20screening%20for%20antimicrobial%20resistant%20Escherichia%20coli%20in%20dairy%20cows%20in%20northern%20New%20South%20Wales&rft.jtitle=Australian%20veterinary%20journal&rft.au=Jordan,%20D&rft.date=2005-11&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=688&rft.epage=694&rft.pages=688-694&rft.issn=0005-0423&rft.eissn=1751-0813&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13051.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68843266%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=68843266&rft_id=info:pmid/16315669&rfr_iscdi=true |