A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study
Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2023-05, Vol.15 (5), p.e38410-e38410 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e38410 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | e38410 |
container_title | Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Sakai, Christiano Makoto Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama Ribeiro, Igor Braga Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares de Rezende, Daniel Tavares Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A Nahas, Sergio C de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux |
description | Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative minimally invasive or non-invasive procedures. Prospective studies comparing these three approaches are scarce in the current literature. In light of this, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of polyp detection between these three methods in patients with a history of curative surgical resection of CRC. Methods Patients were consecutively recruited and all procedures were sequentially conducted on the same day. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of polyps, whereas secondary endpoints were the detection of polyps according to size and location, and the adverse events caused by these procedures. Results A total of 21 patients were consecutively included and all of them underwent all three interventions. No adverse events, local recurrences, or metachronous lesions were detected. In two cases with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CTC unveiled distant metastasis. Optical colonoscopy registered a mean of 0.4 polyp >6 mm and 1.3 polyps 6 mm/patient and no smaller lesions were documented, whereas findings for the colon capsule comprised an average of 0.4 polyps >6 mm and 0.7 polyps |
doi_str_mv | 10.7759/cureus.38410 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10232294</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2822704919</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2150-d6a954d953a294d7c79b2c24d2dc2089944a1d8c22fcd7660a95d1ba1448567c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkkFv1DAQhSMEolXpjTOyxIVDU2zHWcdc0GoptFKlrqCcLa_t7LpKMsF2kPJr-Ss4m7QqnDzz_PmNR3pZ9pbgS85L8VEP3g7hsqgYwS-yU0pWVV6Rir18Vp9k5yE8YIwJ5hRz_Do7KTjlRSHwafZnja6tMnmEfDrRBtpeeRegQ1AfuyFag-6hhb1X_WFMWgPd0lyguz46rZpFDRr6JKrOzAK66sxRdBptVB-GxqIaPIoHi77YaHV086AtNGMf0LqO1qOt8tHNnomAdkTpyfepDG7fgjOLOjlNY3zqJ1x12vpPaI22roGIfsTBjG-yV7Vqgj1fzrPs59er-811fnv37Wazvs01JSXOzUqJkhlRFooKZrjmYkc1ZYYaTXElBGOKmEpTWmvDVyuccEN2ijBWlSuui7Ps8-zbD7vWGm276FUje-9a5UcJysl_bzp3kHv4LQmmBU0zk8OHxcHDr8GGKFsXtG0a1VkYgqQVpRwzQURC3_-HPsDgu7RfogrCscC0TNTFTGkPIXhbP_2GYDmlR87pkcf0JPzd8w2e4MesFH8BRvjFeQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2831709025</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study</title><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Sakai, Christiano Makoto ; Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao ; Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama ; Ribeiro, Igor Braga ; Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares ; de Rezende, Daniel Tavares ; Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A ; Nahas, Sergio C ; de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux ; de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</creator><creatorcontrib>Sakai, Christiano Makoto ; Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao ; Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama ; Ribeiro, Igor Braga ; Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares ; de Rezende, Daniel Tavares ; Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A ; Nahas, Sergio C ; de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux ; de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</creatorcontrib><description>Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative minimally invasive or non-invasive procedures. Prospective studies comparing these three approaches are scarce in the current literature. In light of this, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of polyp detection between these three methods in patients with a history of curative surgical resection of CRC. Methods Patients were consecutively recruited and all procedures were sequentially conducted on the same day. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of polyps, whereas secondary endpoints were the detection of polyps according to size and location, and the adverse events caused by these procedures. Results A total of 21 patients were consecutively included and all of them underwent all three interventions. No adverse events, local recurrences, or metachronous lesions were detected. In two cases with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CTC unveiled distant metastasis. Optical colonoscopy registered a mean of 0.4 polyp >6 mm and 1.3 polyps <6 mm per patient. CTC unveiled only 0.5 polyp >6 mm/patient and no smaller lesions were documented, whereas findings for the colon capsule comprised an average of 0.4 polyps >6 mm and 0.7 polyps <6 mm per patient. Statistical difference was not demonstrated, except for virtual colonoscopy in terms of the total number of polyps detected in comparison to optical colonoscopy. Conclusions Optical colonoscopy showed superior results in comparison to virtual colonoscopy while there was no statistical difference in comparison to colon capsule. Notwithstanding occasional difficulties, all three techniques were well tolerated. Hence, decisions concerning the use of each diagnostic method should be based on their availability, professional expertise, contraindications, and patient preferences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2168-8184</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-8184</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38410</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37273390</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Cureus Inc</publisher><subject>Anesthesia ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal cancer ; Contraindications ; Endoscopy ; Gastroenterology ; Informed consent ; Patients ; Polyps ; Professional ethics ; Professionals ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), 2023-05, Vol.15 (5), p.e38410-e38410</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2023, Sakai et al.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023, Sakai et al. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023, Sakai et al. 2023 Sakai et al.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2150-d6a954d953a294d7c79b2c24d2dc2089944a1d8c22fcd7660a95d1ba1448567c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10232294/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10232294/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37273390$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sakai, Christiano Makoto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Igor Braga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Rezende, Daniel Tavares</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nahas, Sergio C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</creatorcontrib><title>A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study</title><title>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)</title><addtitle>Cureus</addtitle><description>Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative minimally invasive or non-invasive procedures. Prospective studies comparing these three approaches are scarce in the current literature. In light of this, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of polyp detection between these three methods in patients with a history of curative surgical resection of CRC. Methods Patients were consecutively recruited and all procedures were sequentially conducted on the same day. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of polyps, whereas secondary endpoints were the detection of polyps according to size and location, and the adverse events caused by these procedures. Results A total of 21 patients were consecutively included and all of them underwent all three interventions. No adverse events, local recurrences, or metachronous lesions were detected. In two cases with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CTC unveiled distant metastasis. Optical colonoscopy registered a mean of 0.4 polyp >6 mm and 1.3 polyps <6 mm per patient. CTC unveiled only 0.5 polyp >6 mm/patient and no smaller lesions were documented, whereas findings for the colon capsule comprised an average of 0.4 polyps >6 mm and 0.7 polyps <6 mm per patient. Statistical difference was not demonstrated, except for virtual colonoscopy in terms of the total number of polyps detected in comparison to optical colonoscopy. Conclusions Optical colonoscopy showed superior results in comparison to virtual colonoscopy while there was no statistical difference in comparison to colon capsule. Notwithstanding occasional difficulties, all three techniques were well tolerated. Hence, decisions concerning the use of each diagnostic method should be based on their availability, professional expertise, contraindications, and patient preferences.</description><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Contraindications</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Polyps</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>2168-8184</issn><issn>2168-8184</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkkFv1DAQhSMEolXpjTOyxIVDU2zHWcdc0GoptFKlrqCcLa_t7LpKMsF2kPJr-Ss4m7QqnDzz_PmNR3pZ9pbgS85L8VEP3g7hsqgYwS-yU0pWVV6Rir18Vp9k5yE8YIwJ5hRz_Do7KTjlRSHwafZnja6tMnmEfDrRBtpeeRegQ1AfuyFag-6hhb1X_WFMWgPd0lyguz46rZpFDRr6JKrOzAK66sxRdBptVB-GxqIaPIoHi77YaHV086AtNGMf0LqO1qOt8tHNnomAdkTpyfepDG7fgjOLOjlNY3zqJ1x12vpPaI22roGIfsTBjG-yV7Vqgj1fzrPs59er-811fnv37Wazvs01JSXOzUqJkhlRFooKZrjmYkc1ZYYaTXElBGOKmEpTWmvDVyuccEN2ijBWlSuui7Ps8-zbD7vWGm276FUje-9a5UcJysl_bzp3kHv4LQmmBU0zk8OHxcHDr8GGKFsXtG0a1VkYgqQVpRwzQURC3_-HPsDgu7RfogrCscC0TNTFTGkPIXhbP_2GYDmlR87pkcf0JPzd8w2e4MesFH8BRvjFeQ</recordid><startdate>20230501</startdate><enddate>20230501</enddate><creator>Sakai, Christiano Makoto</creator><creator>Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao</creator><creator>Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama</creator><creator>Ribeiro, Igor Braga</creator><creator>Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares</creator><creator>de Rezende, Daniel Tavares</creator><creator>Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A</creator><creator>Nahas, Sergio C</creator><creator>de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux</creator><creator>de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</creator><general>Cureus Inc</general><general>Cureus</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230501</creationdate><title>A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study</title><author>Sakai, Christiano Makoto ; Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao ; Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama ; Ribeiro, Igor Braga ; Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares ; de Rezende, Daniel Tavares ; Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A ; Nahas, Sergio C ; de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux ; de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2150-d6a954d953a294d7c79b2c24d2dc2089944a1d8c22fcd7660a95d1ba1448567c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Contraindications</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Polyps</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sakai, Christiano Makoto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Igor Braga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Rezende, Daniel Tavares</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nahas, Sergio C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</creatorcontrib><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>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</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 Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sakai, Christiano Makoto</au><au>Ueda, Serli Kiyomi Nakao</au><au>Caiado, Angela Hissae Motoyama</au><au>Ribeiro, Igor Braga</au><au>Marinho, Fabio Ramalho Tavares</au><au>de Rezende, Daniel Tavares</au><au>Bustamante-Lopez, Leonardo A</au><au>Nahas, Sergio C</au><au>de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux</au><au>de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study</atitle><jtitle>Curēus (Palo Alto, CA)</jtitle><addtitle>Cureus</addtitle><date>2023-05-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e38410</spage><epage>e38410</epage><pages>e38410-e38410</pages><issn>2168-8184</issn><eissn>2168-8184</eissn><abstract>Background and objective Optical colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and it allows for biopsy and resection, as well as documentation of synchronous lesions. CT colonography (CTC) and colon endoscopic capsule (CEC) are also recommended as alternative minimally invasive or non-invasive procedures. Prospective studies comparing these three approaches are scarce in the current literature. In light of this, the aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of polyp detection between these three methods in patients with a history of curative surgical resection of CRC. Methods Patients were consecutively recruited and all procedures were sequentially conducted on the same day. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of polyps, whereas secondary endpoints were the detection of polyps according to size and location, and the adverse events caused by these procedures. Results A total of 21 patients were consecutively included and all of them underwent all three interventions. No adverse events, local recurrences, or metachronous lesions were detected. In two cases with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CTC unveiled distant metastasis. Optical colonoscopy registered a mean of 0.4 polyp >6 mm and 1.3 polyps <6 mm per patient. CTC unveiled only 0.5 polyp >6 mm/patient and no smaller lesions were documented, whereas findings for the colon capsule comprised an average of 0.4 polyps >6 mm and 0.7 polyps <6 mm per patient. Statistical difference was not demonstrated, except for virtual colonoscopy in terms of the total number of polyps detected in comparison to optical colonoscopy. Conclusions Optical colonoscopy showed superior results in comparison to virtual colonoscopy while there was no statistical difference in comparison to colon capsule. Notwithstanding occasional difficulties, all three techniques were well tolerated. Hence, decisions concerning the use of each diagnostic method should be based on their availability, professional expertise, contraindications, and patient preferences.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Cureus Inc</pub><pmid>37273390</pmid><doi>10.7759/cureus.38410</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2168-8184 |
ispartof | Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), 2023-05, Vol.15 (5), p.e38410-e38410 |
issn | 2168-8184 2168-8184 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10232294 |
source | PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Anesthesia Colonoscopy Colorectal cancer Contraindications Endoscopy Gastroenterology Informed consent Patients Polyps Professional ethics Professionals Statistical analysis |
title | A Head-to-Head Comparison of Computed Tomography Colonography, Optical Colonoscopy, and Colon Endoscopic Capsule for the Detection of Polyps After Partial Colectomy or Rectosigmoidectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Pilot Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T17%3A19%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Head-to-Head%20Comparison%20of%20Computed%20Tomography%20Colonography,%20Optical%20Colonoscopy,%20and%20Colon%20Endoscopic%20Capsule%20for%20the%20Detection%20of%20Polyps%20After%20Partial%20Colectomy%20or%20Rectosigmoidectomy%20for%20Colorectal%20Cancer:%20A%20Pilot%20Study&rft.jtitle=Cur%C4%93us%20(Palo%20Alto,%20CA)&rft.au=Sakai,%20Christiano%20Makoto&rft.date=2023-05-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e38410&rft.epage=e38410&rft.pages=e38410-e38410&rft.issn=2168-8184&rft.eissn=2168-8184&rft_id=info:doi/10.7759/cureus.38410&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2822704919%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2831709025&rft_id=info:pmid/37273390&rfr_iscdi=true |