Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
Purpose In this retrospective study, the visual outcomes and postoperative complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the fellow eye were compared. The patient’s satisfaction was evaluated. Methods A retr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Eye (London) 2015-03, Vol.29 (3), p.327-332 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 332 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 327 |
| container_title | Eye (London) |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Maier, A-KB Gundlach, E Gonnermann, J Klamann, M K J Bertelmann, E Rieck, P W Joussen, A M Torun, N |
| description | Purpose
In this retrospective study, the visual outcomes and postoperative complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the fellow eye were compared. The patient’s satisfaction was evaluated.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of 10 patients, who underwent DSAEK in one eye and DMEK surgery in their fellow eye, was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated, including higher-order aberrations (HOA) and contrast thresholds. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction.
Results
Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better in DMEK when compared with DSAEK (0.16±0.10
vs
0.45±0.58 logMAR,
P
=0.043). Contrast threshold was significantly higher after DMEK than after DSAEK (0.49±0.23
vs
0.25±0.18,
P
=0.043). Post-keratoplasty astigmatism, mean spherical equivalent, and HOA did not differ. Nine out of ten patients preferred the DMEK procedure. Visual outcome (4.80±1.14
vs
4.50±1.58,
P
=0.257), surgery associated pain and burden (DMEK: 1.30±0.48
vs
DSAEK: 1.30±0.48,
P
=1.0), estimated time for recovery and rehabilitation (27.6±54.0
vs
24.9±54.8 days,
P
=0.173), and mean patient satisfaction (5.40±0.84
vs
5.00±1.05,
P
=0.257) were evaluated equally.
Conclusion
Patient satisfaction reached high, equal values after DMEK and after DSAEK. Nevertheless, patients preferred DMEK, if given a choice. Reasons for the preference may include better uncorrected and BCVA, and especially a better contrast sensitivity. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/eye.2014.280 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4366458</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3640471211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-c9e120ac1c33279ce4428724e2149c7b4d9ac476af28f468099fb6f19b1764663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9v1DAQxS0EokvhxhlF4sKBLLbj2PEFqSp_pUpICCRuluNMui5JHGynaD8G35hJt5SC4GJL9m_ezJtHyGNGt4xWzQvYw5ZTJra8oXfIhgkly1rU4i7ZUF3TknP-5Yg8SOmCIqUUvU-OeC0YV6zekB8fIceQZnDZX0LhwpSjHWwGPIuUl26Pb-Nso5_Oi1eQHIyQixHGNtoJCpi6kHcweKS_Yk0O82BT3hfffd795lOOfp5XCbvkMKJ899_Sh-Reb4cEj67vY_L5zetPp-_Ksw9v35-enJWu5jSXTgPj1Drmqoor7UAI3igugDOhnWpFp63DXdieN72QDdW6b2XPdMuUFFJWx-TlQXde2hE6B1fOzRz9aOPeBOvNnz-T35nzcGlEJaWoGxR4di0Qw7cFUjajR7_DgIsJSzIMm8haYhaIPv0LvQhLnNDeSimpVXM10fMD5TCRFKG_GYZRs2ZtMGuzZm0wa8Sf3DZwA_8KF4HyAKR5jQ_ira7_EvwJw4i5Rg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1667697866</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Maier, A-KB ; Gundlach, E ; Gonnermann, J ; Klamann, M K J ; Bertelmann, E ; Rieck, P W ; Joussen, A M ; Torun, N</creator><creatorcontrib>Maier, A-KB ; Gundlach, E ; Gonnermann, J ; Klamann, M K J ; Bertelmann, E ; Rieck, P W ; Joussen, A M ; Torun, N</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
In this retrospective study, the visual outcomes and postoperative complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the fellow eye were compared. The patient’s satisfaction was evaluated.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of 10 patients, who underwent DSAEK in one eye and DMEK surgery in their fellow eye, was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated, including higher-order aberrations (HOA) and contrast thresholds. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction.
Results
Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better in DMEK when compared with DSAEK (0.16±0.10
vs
0.45±0.58 logMAR,
P
=0.043). Contrast threshold was significantly higher after DMEK than after DSAEK (0.49±0.23
vs
0.25±0.18,
P
=0.043). Post-keratoplasty astigmatism, mean spherical equivalent, and HOA did not differ. Nine out of ten patients preferred the DMEK procedure. Visual outcome (4.80±1.14
vs
4.50±1.58,
P
=0.257), surgery associated pain and burden (DMEK: 1.30±0.48
vs
DSAEK: 1.30±0.48,
P
=1.0), estimated time for recovery and rehabilitation (27.6±54.0
vs
24.9±54.8 days,
P
=0.173), and mean patient satisfaction (5.40±0.84
vs
5.00±1.05,
P
=0.257) were evaluated equally.
Conclusion
Patient satisfaction reached high, equal values after DMEK and after DSAEK. Nevertheless, patients preferred DMEK, if given a choice. Reasons for the preference may include better uncorrected and BCVA, and especially a better contrast sensitivity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0950-222X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5454</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/eye.2014.280</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25412715</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>692/699/3161 ; Aged ; Clinical Study ; Corneal Diseases - surgery ; Descemet Membrane - surgery ; Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Laboratory Medicine ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Ophthalmology ; Patient Satisfaction ; Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><ispartof>Eye (London), 2015-03, Vol.29 (3), p.327-332</ispartof><rights>Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2015</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Mar 2015</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2015 Royal College of Ophthalmologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-c9e120ac1c33279ce4428724e2149c7b4d9ac476af28f468099fb6f19b1764663</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-c9e120ac1c33279ce4428724e2149c7b4d9ac476af28f468099fb6f19b1764663</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/PMC4366458/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366458/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25412715$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maier, A-KB</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gundlach, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gonnermann, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klamann, M K J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertelmann, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rieck, P W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joussen, A M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torun, N</creatorcontrib><title>Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty</title><title>Eye (London)</title><addtitle>Eye</addtitle><addtitle>Eye (Lond)</addtitle><description>Purpose
In this retrospective study, the visual outcomes and postoperative complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the fellow eye were compared. The patient’s satisfaction was evaluated.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of 10 patients, who underwent DSAEK in one eye and DMEK surgery in their fellow eye, was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated, including higher-order aberrations (HOA) and contrast thresholds. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction.
Results
Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better in DMEK when compared with DSAEK (0.16±0.10
vs
0.45±0.58 logMAR,
P
=0.043). Contrast threshold was significantly higher after DMEK than after DSAEK (0.49±0.23
vs
0.25±0.18,
P
=0.043). Post-keratoplasty astigmatism, mean spherical equivalent, and HOA did not differ. Nine out of ten patients preferred the DMEK procedure. Visual outcome (4.80±1.14
vs
4.50±1.58,
P
=0.257), surgery associated pain and burden (DMEK: 1.30±0.48
vs
DSAEK: 1.30±0.48,
P
=1.0), estimated time for recovery and rehabilitation (27.6±54.0
vs
24.9±54.8 days,
P
=0.173), and mean patient satisfaction (5.40±0.84
vs
5.00±1.05,
P
=0.257) were evaluated equally.
Conclusion
Patient satisfaction reached high, equal values after DMEK and after DSAEK. Nevertheless, patients preferred DMEK, if given a choice. Reasons for the preference may include better uncorrected and BCVA, and especially a better contrast sensitivity.</description><subject>692/699/3161</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Clinical Study</subject><subject>Corneal Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Descemet Membrane - surgery</subject><subject>Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratory Medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><issn>0950-222X</issn><issn>1476-5454</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9v1DAQxS0EokvhxhlF4sKBLLbj2PEFqSp_pUpICCRuluNMui5JHGynaD8G35hJt5SC4GJL9m_ezJtHyGNGt4xWzQvYw5ZTJra8oXfIhgkly1rU4i7ZUF3TknP-5Yg8SOmCIqUUvU-OeC0YV6zekB8fIceQZnDZX0LhwpSjHWwGPIuUl26Pb-Nso5_Oi1eQHIyQixHGNtoJCpi6kHcweKS_Yk0O82BT3hfffd795lOOfp5XCbvkMKJ899_Sh-Reb4cEj67vY_L5zetPp-_Ksw9v35-enJWu5jSXTgPj1Drmqoor7UAI3igugDOhnWpFp63DXdieN72QDdW6b2XPdMuUFFJWx-TlQXde2hE6B1fOzRz9aOPeBOvNnz-T35nzcGlEJaWoGxR4di0Qw7cFUjajR7_DgIsJSzIMm8haYhaIPv0LvQhLnNDeSimpVXM10fMD5TCRFKG_GYZRs2ZtMGuzZm0wa8Sf3DZwA_8KF4HyAKR5jQ_ira7_EvwJw4i5Rg</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Maier, A-KB</creator><creator>Gundlach, E</creator><creator>Gonnermann, J</creator><creator>Klamann, M K J</creator><creator>Bertelmann, E</creator><creator>Rieck, P W</creator><creator>Joussen, A M</creator><creator>Torun, N</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</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>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty</title><author>Maier, A-KB ; Gundlach, E ; Gonnermann, J ; Klamann, M K J ; Bertelmann, E ; Rieck, P W ; Joussen, A M ; Torun, N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-c9e120ac1c33279ce4428724e2149c7b4d9ac476af28f468099fb6f19b1764663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>692/699/3161</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Clinical Study</topic><topic>Corneal Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Descemet Membrane - surgery</topic><topic>Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratory Medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Visual Acuity - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maier, A-KB</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gundlach, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gonnermann, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klamann, M K J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertelmann, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rieck, P W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joussen, A M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torun, N</creatorcontrib><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>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</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>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science 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>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science 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>Eye (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maier, A-KB</au><au>Gundlach, E</au><au>Gonnermann, J</au><au>Klamann, M K J</au><au>Bertelmann, E</au><au>Rieck, P W</au><au>Joussen, A M</au><au>Torun, N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty</atitle><jtitle>Eye (London)</jtitle><stitle>Eye</stitle><addtitle>Eye (Lond)</addtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>327</spage><epage>332</epage><pages>327-332</pages><issn>0950-222X</issn><eissn>1476-5454</eissn><abstract>Purpose
In this retrospective study, the visual outcomes and postoperative complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the fellow eye were compared. The patient’s satisfaction was evaluated.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of 10 patients, who underwent DSAEK in one eye and DMEK surgery in their fellow eye, was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated, including higher-order aberrations (HOA) and contrast thresholds. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction.
Results
Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better in DMEK when compared with DSAEK (0.16±0.10
vs
0.45±0.58 logMAR,
P
=0.043). Contrast threshold was significantly higher after DMEK than after DSAEK (0.49±0.23
vs
0.25±0.18,
P
=0.043). Post-keratoplasty astigmatism, mean spherical equivalent, and HOA did not differ. Nine out of ten patients preferred the DMEK procedure. Visual outcome (4.80±1.14
vs
4.50±1.58,
P
=0.257), surgery associated pain and burden (DMEK: 1.30±0.48
vs
DSAEK: 1.30±0.48,
P
=1.0), estimated time for recovery and rehabilitation (27.6±54.0
vs
24.9±54.8 days,
P
=0.173), and mean patient satisfaction (5.40±0.84
vs
5.00±1.05,
P
=0.257) were evaluated equally.
Conclusion
Patient satisfaction reached high, equal values after DMEK and after DSAEK. Nevertheless, patients preferred DMEK, if given a choice. Reasons for the preference may include better uncorrected and BCVA, and especially a better contrast sensitivity.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>25412715</pmid><doi>10.1038/eye.2014.280</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0950-222X |
| ispartof | Eye (London), 2015-03, Vol.29 (3), p.327-332 |
| issn | 0950-222X 1476-5454 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4366458 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | 692/699/3161 Aged Clinical Study Corneal Diseases - surgery Descemet Membrane - surgery Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty - methods Female Humans Laboratory Medicine Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Ophthalmology Patient Satisfaction Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology Postoperative Complications Retrospective Studies Surgery Surgical Oncology Surveys and Questionnaires Visual Acuity - physiology |
| title | Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T21%3A47%3A02IST&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=Retrospective%20contralateral%20study%20comparing%20Descemet%20membrane%20endothelial%20keratoplasty%20with%20Descemet%20stripping%20automated%20endothelial%20keratoplasty&rft.jtitle=Eye%20(London)&rft.au=Maier,%20A-KB&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=327&rft.epage=332&rft.pages=327-332&rft.issn=0950-222X&rft.eissn=1476-5454&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/eye.2014.280&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3640471211%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=1667697866&rft_id=info:pmid/25412715&rfr_iscdi=true |