How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods

Contact surveys and diaries have conventionally been used to measure contact networks in different settings for elucidating infectious disease transmission dynamics of respiratory infections. More recently, technological advances have permitted the use of wireless sensor devices, which can be worn b...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC infectious diseases 2014-03, Vol.14 (1), p.136-136, Article 136
Hauptverfasser: Smieszek, Timo, Barclay, Victoria C, Seeni, Indulaxmi, Rainey, Jeanette J, Gao, Hongjiang, Uzicanin, Amra, Salathé, Marcel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 136
container_issue 1
container_start_page 136
container_title BMC infectious diseases
container_volume 14
creator Smieszek, Timo
Barclay, Victoria C
Seeni, Indulaxmi
Rainey, Jeanette J
Gao, Hongjiang
Uzicanin, Amra
Salathé, Marcel
description Contact surveys and diaries have conventionally been used to measure contact networks in different settings for elucidating infectious disease transmission dynamics of respiratory infections. More recently, technological advances have permitted the use of wireless sensor devices, which can be worn by individuals interacting in a particular social context to record high resolution mixing patterns. To date, a direct comparison of these two different methods for collecting contact data has not been performed. We studied the contact network at a United States high school in the spring of 2012. All school members (i.e., students, teachers, and other staff) were invited to wear wireless sensor devices for a single school day, and asked to remember and report the name and duration of all of their close proximity conversational contacts for that day in an online contact survey. We compared the two methods in terms of the resulting network densities, nodal degrees, and degree distributions. We also assessed the correspondence between the methods at the dyadic and individual levels. We found limited congruence in recorded contact data between the online contact survey and wireless sensors. In particular, there was only negligible correlation between the two methods for nodal degree, and the degree distribution differed substantially between both methods. We found that survey underreporting was a significant source of the difference between the two methods, and that this difference could be improved by excluding individuals who reported only a few contact partners. Additionally, survey reporting was more accurate for contacts of longer duration, and very inaccurate for contacts of shorter duration. Finally, female participants tended to report more accurately than male participants. Online contact surveys and wireless sensor devices collected incongruent network data from an identical setting. This finding suggests that these two methods cannot be used interchangeably for informing models of infectious disease dynamics.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1471-2334-14-136
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3984737</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A539575078</galeid><sourcerecordid>A539575078</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-79a3a916fb58c67a04258f5799b1483e2eb62de48bb0bbef2d74c2ba80c7c7a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkktr3DAUhU1paB7tvqti6KZZONXDsqQuCiGkTSAQaEOhKyHJ1zMKtjSV7Dz-fWQyGWZKF0UCXY6-e4QupyjeY3SCsWg-45rjilBaVzhv2rwqDjbS6616vzhM6RYhzAWRb4p9UjeYSIQOit8X4b5MyzD1bZmCdbovB_fg_KI0UA6g0xSh_VLaMKx0nOV7MJXRCTI-xTt4LLXPJfgU4lofYFyGNr0t9jrdJ3i3Po-Km2_nN2cX1dX198uz06vKMibHiktNtcRNZ5iwDdeoJkx0jEtpcC0oEDANaaEWxiBjoCMtry0xWiDLLdf0qPj6bLuazACtBT9G3atVdIOOjypop3ZvvFuqRbhTVIqaU54NPq0NYvgzQRrV4JKFvtcewpQU5ozWnAjSZPTjX-htmKLPv1OYYYY4omiLWugelPNdyO_a2VSdMioZz6DI1Mk_qLxaGJwNHjqX9Z2G452GzIzwMC70lJK6_Pnj_9nrX7ssemZtDClF6Dazw0jNKVNzjNQco1ypnLLc8mF75puGl1jRJx57ypU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1515070306</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Smieszek, Timo ; Barclay, Victoria C ; Seeni, Indulaxmi ; Rainey, Jeanette J ; Gao, Hongjiang ; Uzicanin, Amra ; Salathé, Marcel</creator><creatorcontrib>Smieszek, Timo ; Barclay, Victoria C ; Seeni, Indulaxmi ; Rainey, Jeanette J ; Gao, Hongjiang ; Uzicanin, Amra ; Salathé, Marcel</creatorcontrib><description>Contact surveys and diaries have conventionally been used to measure contact networks in different settings for elucidating infectious disease transmission dynamics of respiratory infections. More recently, technological advances have permitted the use of wireless sensor devices, which can be worn by individuals interacting in a particular social context to record high resolution mixing patterns. To date, a direct comparison of these two different methods for collecting contact data has not been performed. We studied the contact network at a United States high school in the spring of 2012. All school members (i.e., students, teachers, and other staff) were invited to wear wireless sensor devices for a single school day, and asked to remember and report the name and duration of all of their close proximity conversational contacts for that day in an online contact survey. We compared the two methods in terms of the resulting network densities, nodal degrees, and degree distributions. We also assessed the correspondence between the methods at the dyadic and individual levels. We found limited congruence in recorded contact data between the online contact survey and wireless sensors. In particular, there was only negligible correlation between the two methods for nodal degree, and the degree distribution differed substantially between both methods. We found that survey underreporting was a significant source of the difference between the two methods, and that this difference could be improved by excluding individuals who reported only a few contact partners. Additionally, survey reporting was more accurate for contacts of longer duration, and very inaccurate for contacts of shorter duration. Finally, female participants tended to report more accurately than male participants. Online contact surveys and wireless sensor devices collected incongruent network data from an identical setting. This finding suggests that these two methods cannot be used interchangeably for informing models of infectious disease dynamics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2334</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2334</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-136</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24612900</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Communicable diseases ; Comparative analysis ; Contact Tracing - instrumentation ; Contact Tracing - methods ; Data Collection - instrumentation ; Data Collection - methods ; Development and progression ; Diaries ; Disease control ; Disease prevention ; Faculty ; Female ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Internet ; Male ; Measurement ; Medical Records ; Methods ; Models, Statistical ; Population ; Respiratory Tract Infections - transmission ; Schools ; Secondary schools ; Sensors ; Social Behavior ; Social Environment ; Social networks ; Students ; Studies ; Telemetry ; United States ; Wireless networks ; Wireless sensor networks ; Wireless Technology</subject><ispartof>BMC infectious diseases, 2014-03, Vol.14 (1), p.136-136, Article 136</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2014 Smieszek et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Smieszek et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 Smieszek et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-79a3a916fb58c67a04258f5799b1483e2eb62de48bb0bbef2d74c2ba80c7c7a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-79a3a916fb58c67a04258f5799b1483e2eb62de48bb0bbef2d74c2ba80c7c7a3</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/PMC3984737/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984737/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24612900$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smieszek, Timo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barclay, Victoria C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seeni, Indulaxmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rainey, Jeanette J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Hongjiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzicanin, Amra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salathé, Marcel</creatorcontrib><title>How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods</title><title>BMC infectious diseases</title><addtitle>BMC Infect Dis</addtitle><description>Contact surveys and diaries have conventionally been used to measure contact networks in different settings for elucidating infectious disease transmission dynamics of respiratory infections. More recently, technological advances have permitted the use of wireless sensor devices, which can be worn by individuals interacting in a particular social context to record high resolution mixing patterns. To date, a direct comparison of these two different methods for collecting contact data has not been performed. We studied the contact network at a United States high school in the spring of 2012. All school members (i.e., students, teachers, and other staff) were invited to wear wireless sensor devices for a single school day, and asked to remember and report the name and duration of all of their close proximity conversational contacts for that day in an online contact survey. We compared the two methods in terms of the resulting network densities, nodal degrees, and degree distributions. We also assessed the correspondence between the methods at the dyadic and individual levels. We found limited congruence in recorded contact data between the online contact survey and wireless sensors. In particular, there was only negligible correlation between the two methods for nodal degree, and the degree distribution differed substantially between both methods. We found that survey underreporting was a significant source of the difference between the two methods, and that this difference could be improved by excluding individuals who reported only a few contact partners. Additionally, survey reporting was more accurate for contacts of longer duration, and very inaccurate for contacts of shorter duration. Finally, female participants tended to report more accurately than male participants. Online contact surveys and wireless sensor devices collected incongruent network data from an identical setting. This finding suggests that these two methods cannot be used interchangeably for informing models of infectious disease dynamics.</description><subject>Communicable diseases</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Contact Tracing - instrumentation</subject><subject>Contact Tracing - methods</subject><subject>Data Collection - instrumentation</subject><subject>Data Collection - methods</subject><subject>Development and progression</subject><subject>Diaries</subject><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Faculty</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Medical Records</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Respiratory Tract Infections - transmission</subject><subject>Schools</subject><subject>Secondary schools</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Social Behavior</subject><subject>Social Environment</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Telemetry</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Wireless networks</subject><subject>Wireless sensor networks</subject><subject>Wireless Technology</subject><issn>1471-2334</issn><issn>1471-2334</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkktr3DAUhU1paB7tvqti6KZZONXDsqQuCiGkTSAQaEOhKyHJ1zMKtjSV7Dz-fWQyGWZKF0UCXY6-e4QupyjeY3SCsWg-45rjilBaVzhv2rwqDjbS6616vzhM6RYhzAWRb4p9UjeYSIQOit8X4b5MyzD1bZmCdbovB_fg_KI0UA6g0xSh_VLaMKx0nOV7MJXRCTI-xTt4LLXPJfgU4lofYFyGNr0t9jrdJ3i3Po-Km2_nN2cX1dX198uz06vKMibHiktNtcRNZ5iwDdeoJkx0jEtpcC0oEDANaaEWxiBjoCMtry0xWiDLLdf0qPj6bLuazACtBT9G3atVdIOOjypop3ZvvFuqRbhTVIqaU54NPq0NYvgzQRrV4JKFvtcewpQU5ozWnAjSZPTjX-htmKLPv1OYYYY4omiLWugelPNdyO_a2VSdMioZz6DI1Mk_qLxaGJwNHjqX9Z2G452GzIzwMC70lJK6_Pnj_9nrX7ssemZtDClF6Dazw0jNKVNzjNQco1ypnLLc8mF75puGl1jRJx57ypU</recordid><startdate>20140310</startdate><enddate>20140310</enddate><creator>Smieszek, Timo</creator><creator>Barclay, Victoria C</creator><creator>Seeni, Indulaxmi</creator><creator>Rainey, Jeanette J</creator><creator>Gao, Hongjiang</creator><creator>Uzicanin, Amra</creator><creator>Salathé, Marcel</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><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>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140310</creationdate><title>How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods</title><author>Smieszek, Timo ; Barclay, Victoria C ; Seeni, Indulaxmi ; Rainey, Jeanette J ; Gao, Hongjiang ; Uzicanin, Amra ; Salathé, Marcel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-79a3a916fb58c67a04258f5799b1483e2eb62de48bb0bbef2d74c2ba80c7c7a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Communicable diseases</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Contact Tracing - instrumentation</topic><topic>Contact Tracing - methods</topic><topic>Data Collection - instrumentation</topic><topic>Data Collection - methods</topic><topic>Development and progression</topic><topic>Diaries</topic><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Faculty</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Medical Records</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Respiratory Tract Infections - transmission</topic><topic>Schools</topic><topic>Secondary schools</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Social Behavior</topic><topic>Social Environment</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Telemetry</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Wireless networks</topic><topic>Wireless sensor networks</topic><topic>Wireless Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smieszek, Timo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barclay, Victoria C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seeni, Indulaxmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rainey, Jeanette J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Hongjiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzicanin, Amra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salathé, Marcel</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</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 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>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</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>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC infectious diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smieszek, Timo</au><au>Barclay, Victoria C</au><au>Seeni, Indulaxmi</au><au>Rainey, Jeanette J</au><au>Gao, Hongjiang</au><au>Uzicanin, Amra</au><au>Salathé, Marcel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods</atitle><jtitle>BMC infectious diseases</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2014-03-10</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>136</spage><epage>136</epage><pages>136-136</pages><artnum>136</artnum><issn>1471-2334</issn><eissn>1471-2334</eissn><abstract>Contact surveys and diaries have conventionally been used to measure contact networks in different settings for elucidating infectious disease transmission dynamics of respiratory infections. More recently, technological advances have permitted the use of wireless sensor devices, which can be worn by individuals interacting in a particular social context to record high resolution mixing patterns. To date, a direct comparison of these two different methods for collecting contact data has not been performed. We studied the contact network at a United States high school in the spring of 2012. All school members (i.e., students, teachers, and other staff) were invited to wear wireless sensor devices for a single school day, and asked to remember and report the name and duration of all of their close proximity conversational contacts for that day in an online contact survey. We compared the two methods in terms of the resulting network densities, nodal degrees, and degree distributions. We also assessed the correspondence between the methods at the dyadic and individual levels. We found limited congruence in recorded contact data between the online contact survey and wireless sensors. In particular, there was only negligible correlation between the two methods for nodal degree, and the degree distribution differed substantially between both methods. We found that survey underreporting was a significant source of the difference between the two methods, and that this difference could be improved by excluding individuals who reported only a few contact partners. Additionally, survey reporting was more accurate for contacts of longer duration, and very inaccurate for contacts of shorter duration. Finally, female participants tended to report more accurately than male participants. Online contact surveys and wireless sensor devices collected incongruent network data from an identical setting. This finding suggests that these two methods cannot be used interchangeably for informing models of infectious disease dynamics.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>24612900</pmid><doi>10.1186/1471-2334-14-136</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1471-2334
ispartof BMC infectious diseases, 2014-03, Vol.14 (1), p.136-136, Article 136
issn 1471-2334
1471-2334
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3984737
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; SpringerLink Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Communicable diseases
Comparative analysis
Contact Tracing - instrumentation
Contact Tracing - methods
Data Collection - instrumentation
Data Collection - methods
Development and progression
Diaries
Disease control
Disease prevention
Faculty
Female
Health aspects
Humans
Internet
Male
Measurement
Medical Records
Methods
Models, Statistical
Population
Respiratory Tract Infections - transmission
Schools
Secondary schools
Sensors
Social Behavior
Social Environment
Social networks
Students
Studies
Telemetry
United States
Wireless networks
Wireless sensor networks
Wireless Technology
title How should social mixing be measured: comparing web-based survey and sensor-based methods
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T03%3A39%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20should%20social%20mixing%20be%20measured:%20comparing%20web-based%20survey%20and%20sensor-based%20methods&rft.jtitle=BMC%20infectious%20diseases&rft.au=Smieszek,%20Timo&rft.date=2014-03-10&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=136&rft.epage=136&rft.pages=136-136&rft.artnum=136&rft.issn=1471-2334&rft.eissn=1471-2334&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1471-2334-14-136&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA539575078%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1515070306&rft_id=info:pmid/24612900&rft_galeid=A539575078&rfr_iscdi=true