Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments
Purpose An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments. Methods The injector was analyzed for four im...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2021-01, Vol.22 (1), p.343-349 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 349 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 343 |
container_title | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Long, Zaiyang Kurup, Anil Nicholas Jensen, Nicole M. Hangiandreou, Nicholas J. Schueler, Beth A. Yu, Lifeng Leng, Shuai Wood, Christopher P. Felmlee, Joel P. |
description | Purpose
An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.
Methods
The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.
Results
For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.
Conclusions
No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.13156 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7856482</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A711088065</galeid><sourcerecordid>A711088065</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5156-f12802d125f2e81e1d5818b2cf1ccc3310736afa05eefc39fdc34482b45e16523</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EoqVw4QFQJC6AtIvHjrPeC9JqVaBSoRc4W15nHLxK7OAkRXvjEfqMPAmzpFTlgnzwyP7mN38-xp4DXwLn4q11nViCBFU9YKegRLVYr6F8eC8-YU-GYc85gJb6MTuRUq6V4vKU5YsYxmDbYsRhDLEpki96bHxom2zppStefcappdAWV7HP6XWR4q-fN7tUH4oQ9-jGlCkouqkdQ99ikW0dUpua4IgaOtscqRivQ06xwzgOT9kjb9sBn93eZ-zr-_Mv24-Ly6sPF9vN5cIpGmXhQWguahDKC9SAUCsNeiecB-eclMBXsrLecoXonVz72smy1GJXKoRKCXnG3s3cftp1WDuqnW1r-kxN5YNJNph_f2L4Zpp0bVZaVQQiwMtbQE7fJ9qP2acpR-rZiFIrqZWuJKmWs6qxLZoQfSKYo1NjF1yKSLtEs1kBcK15pSjhzZzgchqGjP6uJeDmaKg5Gmr-GEriF_eHuJP-dZAEMAt-UJnDf1Bms_0kZuhvhs2t1g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2485385863</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Long, Zaiyang ; Kurup, Anil Nicholas ; Jensen, Nicole M. ; Hangiandreou, Nicholas J. ; Schueler, Beth A. ; Yu, Lifeng ; Leng, Shuai ; Wood, Christopher P. ; Felmlee, Joel P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Long, Zaiyang ; Kurup, Anil Nicholas ; Jensen, Nicole M. ; Hangiandreou, Nicholas J. ; Schueler, Beth A. ; Yu, Lifeng ; Leng, Shuai ; Wood, Christopher P. ; Felmlee, Joel P.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.
Methods
The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.
Results
For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.
Conclusions
No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13156</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33395503</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Adhesives ; Anthropomorphism ; Chemotherapy ; CT imaging ; Diagnostic imaging ; Drug delivery systems ; Drugs ; Health care ; Implants, Artificial ; Magnetic fields ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medical imaging equipment ; MRI ; neulasta ; Patients ; pegfilgrastim ; Prosthesis ; Scanners ; Technical Note ; Technical Notes ; Ultrasonic imaging ; ultrasound ; Vehicles ; x‐ray</subject><ispartof>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2021-01, Vol.22 (1), p.343-349</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5156-f12802d125f2e81e1d5818b2cf1ccc3310736afa05eefc39fdc34482b45e16523</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5156-f12802d125f2e81e1d5818b2cf1ccc3310736afa05eefc39fdc34482b45e16523</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4971-3215</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856482/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856482/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33395503$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Long, Zaiyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurup, Anil Nicholas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Nicole M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schueler, Beth A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leng, Shuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Christopher P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felmlee, Joel P.</creatorcontrib><title>Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments</title><title>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose
An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.
Methods
The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.
Results
For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.
Conclusions
No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Adhesives</subject><subject>Anthropomorphism</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>CT imaging</subject><subject>Diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Drug delivery systems</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Implants, Artificial</subject><subject>Magnetic fields</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medical imaging equipment</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>neulasta</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>pegfilgrastim</subject><subject>Prosthesis</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Technical Note</subject><subject>Technical Notes</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>ultrasound</subject><subject>Vehicles</subject><subject>x‐ray</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EoqVw4QFQJC6AtIvHjrPeC9JqVaBSoRc4W15nHLxK7OAkRXvjEfqMPAmzpFTlgnzwyP7mN38-xp4DXwLn4q11nViCBFU9YKegRLVYr6F8eC8-YU-GYc85gJb6MTuRUq6V4vKU5YsYxmDbYsRhDLEpki96bHxom2zppStefcappdAWV7HP6XWR4q-fN7tUH4oQ9-jGlCkouqkdQ99ikW0dUpua4IgaOtscqRivQ06xwzgOT9kjb9sBn93eZ-zr-_Mv24-Ly6sPF9vN5cIpGmXhQWguahDKC9SAUCsNeiecB-eclMBXsrLecoXonVz72smy1GJXKoRKCXnG3s3cftp1WDuqnW1r-kxN5YNJNph_f2L4Zpp0bVZaVQQiwMtbQE7fJ9qP2acpR-rZiFIrqZWuJKmWs6qxLZoQfSKYo1NjF1yKSLtEs1kBcK15pSjhzZzgchqGjP6uJeDmaKg5Gmr-GEriF_eHuJP-dZAEMAt-UJnDf1Bms_0kZuhvhs2t1g</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Long, Zaiyang</creator><creator>Kurup, Anil Nicholas</creator><creator>Jensen, Nicole M.</creator><creator>Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.</creator><creator>Schueler, Beth A.</creator><creator>Yu, Lifeng</creator><creator>Leng, Shuai</creator><creator>Wood, Christopher P.</creator><creator>Felmlee, Joel P.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</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>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4971-3215</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments</title><author>Long, Zaiyang ; Kurup, Anil Nicholas ; Jensen, Nicole M. ; Hangiandreou, Nicholas J. ; Schueler, Beth A. ; Yu, Lifeng ; Leng, Shuai ; Wood, Christopher P. ; Felmlee, Joel P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5156-f12802d125f2e81e1d5818b2cf1ccc3310736afa05eefc39fdc34482b45e16523</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Adhesives</topic><topic>Anthropomorphism</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>CT imaging</topic><topic>Diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Drug delivery systems</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Implants, Artificial</topic><topic>Magnetic fields</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medical imaging equipment</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>neulasta</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>pegfilgrastim</topic><topic>Prosthesis</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Technical Note</topic><topic>Technical Notes</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>ultrasound</topic><topic>Vehicles</topic><topic>x‐ray</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Long, Zaiyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurup, Anil Nicholas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Nicole M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schueler, Beth A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Lifeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leng, Shuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Christopher P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felmlee, Joel P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</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 Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</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>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Long, Zaiyang</au><au>Kurup, Anil Nicholas</au><au>Jensen, Nicole M.</au><au>Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.</au><au>Schueler, Beth A.</au><au>Yu, Lifeng</au><au>Leng, Shuai</au><au>Wood, Christopher P.</au><au>Felmlee, Joel P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>343</spage><epage>349</epage><pages>343-349</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Purpose
An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.
Methods
The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.
Results
For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.
Conclusions
No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>33395503</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.13156</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4971-3215</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-9914 |
ispartof | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 2021-01, Vol.22 (1), p.343-349 |
issn | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7856482 |
source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection); PubMed Central |
subjects | Abdomen Adhesives Anthropomorphism Chemotherapy CT imaging Diagnostic imaging Drug delivery systems Drugs Health care Implants, Artificial Magnetic fields Magnetic resonance imaging Medical imaging equipment MRI neulasta Patients pegfilgrastim Prosthesis Scanners Technical Note Technical Notes Ultrasonic imaging ultrasound Vehicles x‐ray |
title | Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T06%3A58%3A07IST&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=Initial%20testing%20of%20pegfilgrastim%20(Neulasta%20Onpro)%20on%E2%80%90body%20injector%20in%20multiple%20radiological%20imaging%20environments&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Applied%20Clinical%20Medical%20Physics&rft.au=Long,%20Zaiyang&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=343&rft.epage=349&rft.pages=343-349&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.13156&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA711088065%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=2485385863&rft_id=info:pmid/33395503&rft_galeid=A711088065&rfr_iscdi=true |