The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II
In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 1999-01, Vol.34 (1), p.53-59 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 59 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 53 |
container_title | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | SANDANGER, I MOUM, T INGEBRIGTSEN, G SØRENSEN, T DALGARD, O. S BRUUSGAARD, D |
description | In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s001270050112 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69612854</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>972289211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-e277ae605fbf56eca7c35456c82381149d0a4d7bdc2a6d087af7bb5d6634df083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0U1v1DAQBmALgehSOHJFFkLcUvzthFu1fHSlShwo58hxJlu3iR0yXlDP_PF62ZVoOXkkPzPSzEvIa87OOGP2AzLGhWVMM87FE7LiSsqqEbV-SlasKbVttDohLxBvGGOysfI5Odl3Si7Eivy5ugY6gYshbqmLPcWwjWEI3kUPNA3UO4QIiPQjzYVepPk2RKTf76Y5p4mur8HfjgFzJfTf_j1ap2lOGDLQTcywRJdDim6kn4LbxoQ5-MPHrwC_6Wbzkjwb3Ijw6viekh9fPl-tL6rLb1836_PLykulcwXCWgeG6aEbtAHvrJdaaeNrIWvOVdMzp3rb9V4407PausF2ne6NkaofWC1PyfvD3HlJP3eAuZ0CehhHFyHtsDWN4eVwqsC3_8GbtCtrjNgKWYxRihVUHZBfEuICQzsvYXLLXctZuz9w-yia4t8ch-66CfoH-pBFAe-OwKF347CUCAL-c6YWXBt5D7vPlb4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>236126440</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>SANDANGER, I ; MOUM, T ; INGEBRIGTSEN, G ; SØRENSEN, T ; DALGARD, O. S ; BRUUSGAARD, D</creator><creatorcontrib>SANDANGER, I ; MOUM, T ; INGEBRIGTSEN, G ; SØRENSEN, T ; DALGARD, O. S ; BRUUSGAARD, D</creatorcontrib><description>In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0933-7954</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-9285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s001270050112</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10073122</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SPPEEM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Anxiety - diagnosis ; Anxiety - epidemiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Case-Control Studies ; Depression - diagnosis ; Depression - epidemiology ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Humans ; Interviews ; Linear Models ; Male ; Mass Screening - instrumentation ; Medical sciences ; Mental Disorders - classification ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - epidemiology ; Middle Aged ; Odds Ratio ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometrics ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Random Allocation ; Response rates ; Sampling Studies ; Techniques and methods</subject><ispartof>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1999-01, Vol.34 (1), p.53-59</ispartof><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Steinkopff Verlag 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-e277ae605fbf56eca7c35456c82381149d0a4d7bdc2a6d087af7bb5d6634df083</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1682156$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10073122$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>SANDANGER, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MOUM, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SØRENSEN, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DALGARD, O. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BRUUSGAARD, D</creatorcontrib><title>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</title><title>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</title><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><description>In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anxiety - diagnosis</subject><subject>Anxiety - epidemiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Depression - diagnosis</subject><subject>Depression - epidemiology</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - instrumentation</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - classification</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - epidemiology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Sampling Studies</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><issn>0933-7954</issn><issn>1433-9285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><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>eNpd0U1v1DAQBmALgehSOHJFFkLcUvzthFu1fHSlShwo58hxJlu3iR0yXlDP_PF62ZVoOXkkPzPSzEvIa87OOGP2AzLGhWVMM87FE7LiSsqqEbV-SlasKbVttDohLxBvGGOysfI5Odl3Si7Eivy5ugY6gYshbqmLPcWwjWEI3kUPNA3UO4QIiPQjzYVepPk2RKTf76Y5p4mur8HfjgFzJfTf_j1ap2lOGDLQTcywRJdDim6kn4LbxoQ5-MPHrwC_6Wbzkjwb3Ijw6viekh9fPl-tL6rLb1836_PLykulcwXCWgeG6aEbtAHvrJdaaeNrIWvOVdMzp3rb9V4407PausF2ne6NkaofWC1PyfvD3HlJP3eAuZ0CehhHFyHtsDWN4eVwqsC3_8GbtCtrjNgKWYxRihVUHZBfEuICQzsvYXLLXctZuz9w-yia4t8ch-66CfoH-pBFAe-OwKF347CUCAL-c6YWXBt5D7vPlb4</recordid><startdate>19990101</startdate><enddate>19990101</enddate><creator>SANDANGER, I</creator><creator>MOUM, T</creator><creator>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</creator><creator>SØRENSEN, T</creator><creator>DALGARD, O. S</creator><creator>BRUUSGAARD, D</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990101</creationdate><title>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</title><author>SANDANGER, I ; MOUM, T ; INGEBRIGTSEN, G ; SØRENSEN, T ; DALGARD, O. S ; BRUUSGAARD, D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-e277ae605fbf56eca7c35456c82381149d0a4d7bdc2a6d087af7bb5d6634df083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anxiety - diagnosis</topic><topic>Anxiety - epidemiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Depression - diagnosis</topic><topic>Depression - epidemiology</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - instrumentation</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - classification</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - epidemiology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Sampling Studies</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>SANDANGER, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MOUM, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SØRENSEN, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DALGARD, O. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BRUUSGAARD, D</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>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</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 Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology 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>Research Library Prep</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>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</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 One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>SANDANGER, I</au><au>MOUM, T</au><au>INGEBRIGTSEN, G</au><au>SØRENSEN, T</au><au>DALGARD, O. S</au><au>BRUUSGAARD, D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II</atitle><jtitle>Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol</addtitle><date>1999-01-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>53</spage><epage>59</epage><pages>53-59</pages><issn>0933-7954</issn><eissn>1433-9285</eissn><coden>SPPEEM</coden><abstract>In previous analyses of data from the present general population study we found that screening of anxiety and depression symptoms by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and diagnostic classification by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) identified the same amount of cases, but agreed in only half of them. In this paper we compared and validated the screening cases with the classificatory cases by the use of medication, loss of functioning and help seeking (illness indicators). We thought that the CIDI cases would have more illness indicators, because they reflected diagnoses, "true illness", in contrast to the HSCL-25, which was a more unspecific measure of distress. The HSCL-25 and the illness indicators data were collected in a stage I random individual population sample above 18 years during 1989-1991 (N = 1879, response rate 74%), the CIDI data were collected in a selected stage II, (N = 606, response rate 77%). The stage II data were weighted to represent the population sample. Screening cases by the HSCL-25 had significantly more illness indicators than diagnostic cases by the CIDI. Cases agreed upon with both instruments had the most illness indicators, cases agreed upon only by the CIDI had the least. Diagnoses give information about help eventually needed, the HSCL-25 distress measure expresses more the urgency with which it is needed. The choice between the HSCL-25 and the CIDI would depend on the aim and the resources of the study. If evaluation of needs is involved, using an instrument picking up both classification and distress would be the best choice. Given our positive experience with interviewing with the CIDI, a CIDI improved to be more sensitive to how much distress a certain diagnosis exerts on the individual would be a good choice.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>10073122</pmid><doi>10.1007/s001270050112</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0933-7954 |
ispartof | Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1999-01, Vol.34 (1), p.53-59 |
issn | 0933-7954 1433-9285 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69612854 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Anxiety - diagnosis Anxiety - epidemiology Biological and medical sciences Case-Control Studies Depression - diagnosis Depression - epidemiology Diagnosis, Differential Epidemiology Female Humans Interviews Linear Models Male Mass Screening - instrumentation Medical sciences Mental Disorders - classification Mental Disorders - diagnosis Mental Disorders - epidemiology Middle Aged Odds Ratio Predictive Value of Tests Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychometrics Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems Psychopathology. Psychiatry Random Allocation Response rates Sampling Studies Techniques and methods |
title | The meaning and significance of caseness : the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview II |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T02%3A57%3A40IST&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=The%20meaning%20and%20significance%20of%20caseness%20:%20the%20Hopkins%20Symptom%20Checklist-25%20and%20the%20Composite%20International%20Diagnostic%20Interview%20II&rft.jtitle=Social%20Psychiatry%20and%20Psychiatric%20Epidemiology&rft.au=SANDANGER,%20I&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=53&rft.epage=59&rft.pages=53-59&rft.issn=0933-7954&rft.eissn=1433-9285&rft.coden=SPPEEM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s001270050112&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E972289211%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=236126440&rft_id=info:pmid/10073122&rfr_iscdi=true |