Loading…
Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation
Research waste is estimated to be very common, but assessments of its prevalence and scope are rare. As an example, we assessed research waste in clinical research on calcium intake (assessing study design and endpoint type) and vitamin D supplementation (assessing endpoint type). We examined 404 ra...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMC medical research methodology 2018-10, Vol.18 (1), p.103-10, Article 103 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43 |
container_end_page | 10 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 103 |
container_title | BMC medical research methodology |
container_volume | 18 |
creator | Bolland, Mark J Avenell, Alison Grey, Andrew |
description | Research waste is estimated to be very common, but assessments of its prevalence and scope are rare. As an example, we assessed research waste in clinical research on calcium intake (assessing study design and endpoint type) and vitamin D supplementation (assessing endpoint type).
We examined 404 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of calcium intake (diet or supplements) and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture, and 547 RCTs of vitamin D supplements, and assessed the proportion of studies that used surrogate or clinical endpoints. For studies with BMD or fracture as an endpoint, we estimated when the 'tipping' point occurred indicating the need for RCTs with fracture as an endpoint (based on cumulative meta-analyses of BMD RCTs, and chronological review of observational studies), and whether each study published at least 5y after the tipping point was novel, added new clinical knowledge or was research waste.
Observational studies of calcium intake and BMD or fracture outnumbered RCTs by 3.3-4.5 times. For both calcium intake and vitamin D supplements, studies using surrogate endpoints outnumbered studies using clinical endpoints by 1.6-3 times. Of 41 RCT publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1994, we considered that 19 (46%) lacked novelty, another 13 (32%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 30 (73%) were research waste. Of 204 observational study publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture, 197 (96%) lacked novelty, another 5 (2%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 202 (99%) were research waste. Of 39 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1999, 14 (36%) lacked novelty, another 13 (33%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 27 (69%) were research waste.
A high proportion of studies of calcium intake since 2000 (95%) and trials of vitamin D supplements since 2005 (69%) on BMD or fracture represent research waste. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12874-018-0556-0 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4633f6cfeb424c32ab3c910f21f12b23</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4633f6cfeb424c32ab3c910f21f12b23</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2122740940</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkstu1jAQhSMEoqXwAGyQJbYEPLYTOyyQqnKrVIkNrC3Hl9Q_iR3spNBH4i1xmlK1K9szc76ZsU5VvQT8FkC07zIQwVmNQdS4adoaP6qOgXGoCRHi8b37UfUs5wPGwAVtn1ZHFFPcYNYeV39Pc7Y5TzYsKDqUbLYq6Uv0W-XFolmlBcF7pAKyf-w0jyohl-JUXmrywYcB5WU118jY7IfwBuU1pTioIlXBID2WGq1GZIOZow9LRj7cKLzNW7uS036dSnRRP3fNlV82NPpYWPM82m0ytfgYnldPnBqzfXF7nlQ_Pn_6fva1vvj25fzs9KLWrKNLzTtDDe84QE-gAcF7aMGYljBsuOaYcWE7SrXuy_6OCtIw4bjjHAPuuGX0pDrfuSaqg5yTn1S6llF5eROIaZDlV7werWQtpa7VzvaMME2J6qnuADsCDkhPaGF92Fnz2k_W6LJLUuMD6MNM8JdyiFeyBYEZbIDXt4AUf602L_IQ1xTK_pIAIZzhjuFSBXuVTjHnZN1dB8Byc4rcnSKLU-TmFLlpXt0f7U7x3xr0H90qvBU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2122740940</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Bolland, Mark J ; Avenell, Alison ; Grey, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Bolland, Mark J ; Avenell, Alison ; Grey, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>Research waste is estimated to be very common, but assessments of its prevalence and scope are rare. As an example, we assessed research waste in clinical research on calcium intake (assessing study design and endpoint type) and vitamin D supplementation (assessing endpoint type).
We examined 404 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of calcium intake (diet or supplements) and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture, and 547 RCTs of vitamin D supplements, and assessed the proportion of studies that used surrogate or clinical endpoints. For studies with BMD or fracture as an endpoint, we estimated when the 'tipping' point occurred indicating the need for RCTs with fracture as an endpoint (based on cumulative meta-analyses of BMD RCTs, and chronological review of observational studies), and whether each study published at least 5y after the tipping point was novel, added new clinical knowledge or was research waste.
Observational studies of calcium intake and BMD or fracture outnumbered RCTs by 3.3-4.5 times. For both calcium intake and vitamin D supplements, studies using surrogate endpoints outnumbered studies using clinical endpoints by 1.6-3 times. Of 41 RCT publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1994, we considered that 19 (46%) lacked novelty, another 13 (32%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 30 (73%) were research waste. Of 204 observational study publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture, 197 (96%) lacked novelty, another 5 (2%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 202 (99%) were research waste. Of 39 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1999, 14 (36%) lacked novelty, another 13 (33%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 27 (69%) were research waste.
A high proportion of studies of calcium intake since 2000 (95%) and trials of vitamin D supplements since 2005 (69%) on BMD or fracture represent research waste.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2288</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2288</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0556-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30305046</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Adult ; Biomedical research ; Bone density ; Bone Density - drug effects ; Calcium - administration & dosage ; Calcium intake ; Dietary Supplements ; Endpoint Determination ; Fractures ; Fractures, Bone - prevention & control ; Humans ; Knowledge ; Medical research ; Medical Waste - economics ; Medical Waste - prevention & control ; Medical Waste - statistics & numerical data ; Observational studies ; Observational Studies as Topic ; Randomized controlled trials ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Research Design ; Research waste ; Surrogate endpoints ; Systematic review ; Vitamin D ; Vitamin D - administration & dosage ; Vitamins - administration & dosage ; Womens health]]></subject><ispartof>BMC medical research methodology, 2018-10, Vol.18 (1), p.103-10, Article 103</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2018. This work is licensed 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><rights>The Author(s). 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0465-2674</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/PMC6180413/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2122740940?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25752,27923,27924,37011,44589,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30305046$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bolland, Mark J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Avenell, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grey, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation</title><title>BMC medical research methodology</title><addtitle>BMC Med Res Methodol</addtitle><description>Research waste is estimated to be very common, but assessments of its prevalence and scope are rare. As an example, we assessed research waste in clinical research on calcium intake (assessing study design and endpoint type) and vitamin D supplementation (assessing endpoint type).
We examined 404 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of calcium intake (diet or supplements) and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture, and 547 RCTs of vitamin D supplements, and assessed the proportion of studies that used surrogate or clinical endpoints. For studies with BMD or fracture as an endpoint, we estimated when the 'tipping' point occurred indicating the need for RCTs with fracture as an endpoint (based on cumulative meta-analyses of BMD RCTs, and chronological review of observational studies), and whether each study published at least 5y after the tipping point was novel, added new clinical knowledge or was research waste.
Observational studies of calcium intake and BMD or fracture outnumbered RCTs by 3.3-4.5 times. For both calcium intake and vitamin D supplements, studies using surrogate endpoints outnumbered studies using clinical endpoints by 1.6-3 times. Of 41 RCT publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1994, we considered that 19 (46%) lacked novelty, another 13 (32%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 30 (73%) were research waste. Of 204 observational study publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture, 197 (96%) lacked novelty, another 5 (2%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 202 (99%) were research waste. Of 39 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1999, 14 (36%) lacked novelty, another 13 (33%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 27 (69%) were research waste.
A high proportion of studies of calcium intake since 2000 (95%) and trials of vitamin D supplements since 2005 (69%) on BMD or fracture represent research waste.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biomedical research</subject><subject>Bone density</subject><subject>Bone Density - drug effects</subject><subject>Calcium - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Calcium intake</subject><subject>Dietary Supplements</subject><subject>Endpoint Determination</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - prevention & control</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical Waste - economics</subject><subject>Medical Waste - prevention & control</subject><subject>Medical Waste - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Observational Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Randomized controlled trials</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research waste</subject><subject>Surrogate endpoints</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Vitamin D</subject><subject>Vitamin D - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Vitamins - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>1471-2288</issn><issn>1471-2288</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkstu1jAQhSMEoqXwAGyQJbYEPLYTOyyQqnKrVIkNrC3Hl9Q_iR3spNBH4i1xmlK1K9szc76ZsU5VvQT8FkC07zIQwVmNQdS4adoaP6qOgXGoCRHi8b37UfUs5wPGwAVtn1ZHFFPcYNYeV39Pc7Y5TzYsKDqUbLYq6Uv0W-XFolmlBcF7pAKyf-w0jyohl-JUXmrywYcB5WU118jY7IfwBuU1pTioIlXBID2WGq1GZIOZow9LRj7cKLzNW7uS036dSnRRP3fNlV82NPpYWPM82m0ytfgYnldPnBqzfXF7nlQ_Pn_6fva1vvj25fzs9KLWrKNLzTtDDe84QE-gAcF7aMGYljBsuOaYcWE7SrXuy_6OCtIw4bjjHAPuuGX0pDrfuSaqg5yTn1S6llF5eROIaZDlV7werWQtpa7VzvaMME2J6qnuADsCDkhPaGF92Fnz2k_W6LJLUuMD6MNM8JdyiFeyBYEZbIDXt4AUf602L_IQ1xTK_pIAIZzhjuFSBXuVTjHnZN1dB8Byc4rcnSKLU-TmFLlpXt0f7U7x3xr0H90qvBU</recordid><startdate>20181010</startdate><enddate>20181010</enddate><creator>Bolland, Mark J</creator><creator>Avenell, Alison</creator><creator>Grey, Andrew</creator><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</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>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</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>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-2674</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181010</creationdate><title>Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation</title><author>Bolland, Mark J ; Avenell, Alison ; Grey, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biomedical research</topic><topic>Bone density</topic><topic>Bone Density - drug effects</topic><topic>Calcium - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Calcium intake</topic><topic>Dietary Supplements</topic><topic>Endpoint Determination</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - prevention & control</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical Waste - economics</topic><topic>Medical Waste - prevention & control</topic><topic>Medical Waste - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Observational Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Randomized controlled trials</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research waste</topic><topic>Surrogate endpoints</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Vitamin D</topic><topic>Vitamin D - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Vitamins - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bolland, Mark J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Avenell, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grey, Andrew</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>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical 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</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>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</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><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMC medical research methodology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bolland, Mark J</au><au>Avenell, Alison</au><au>Grey, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation</atitle><jtitle>BMC medical research methodology</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Med Res Methodol</addtitle><date>2018-10-10</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>103</spage><epage>10</epage><pages>103-10</pages><artnum>103</artnum><issn>1471-2288</issn><eissn>1471-2288</eissn><abstract>Research waste is estimated to be very common, but assessments of its prevalence and scope are rare. As an example, we assessed research waste in clinical research on calcium intake (assessing study design and endpoint type) and vitamin D supplementation (assessing endpoint type).
We examined 404 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of calcium intake (diet or supplements) and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture, and 547 RCTs of vitamin D supplements, and assessed the proportion of studies that used surrogate or clinical endpoints. For studies with BMD or fracture as an endpoint, we estimated when the 'tipping' point occurred indicating the need for RCTs with fracture as an endpoint (based on cumulative meta-analyses of BMD RCTs, and chronological review of observational studies), and whether each study published at least 5y after the tipping point was novel, added new clinical knowledge or was research waste.
Observational studies of calcium intake and BMD or fracture outnumbered RCTs by 3.3-4.5 times. For both calcium intake and vitamin D supplements, studies using surrogate endpoints outnumbered studies using clinical endpoints by 1.6-3 times. Of 41 RCT publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1994, we considered that 19 (46%) lacked novelty, another 13 (32%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 30 (73%) were research waste. Of 204 observational study publications of calcium intake and BMD or fracture, 197 (96%) lacked novelty, another 5 (2%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 202 (99%) were research waste. Of 39 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation and BMD or fracture published at least 5y after the tipping point in 1999, 14 (36%) lacked novelty, another 13 (33%) added no new clinical knowledge, and 27 (69%) were research waste.
A high proportion of studies of calcium intake since 2000 (95%) and trials of vitamin D supplements since 2005 (69%) on BMD or fracture represent research waste.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central</pub><pmid>30305046</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12874-018-0556-0</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-2674</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1471-2288 |
ispartof | BMC medical research methodology, 2018-10, Vol.18 (1), p.103-10, Article 103 |
issn | 1471-2288 1471-2288 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4633f6cfeb424c32ab3c910f21f12b23 |
source | Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); PubMed Central |
subjects | Adult Biomedical research Bone density Bone Density - drug effects Calcium - administration & dosage Calcium intake Dietary Supplements Endpoint Determination Fractures Fractures, Bone - prevention & control Humans Knowledge Medical research Medical Waste - economics Medical Waste - prevention & control Medical Waste - statistics & numerical data Observational studies Observational Studies as Topic Randomized controlled trials Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Research Design Research waste Surrogate endpoints Systematic review Vitamin D Vitamin D - administration & dosage Vitamins - administration & dosage Womens health |
title | Assessment of research waste part 1: an exemplar from examining study design, surrogate and clinical endpoints in studies of calcium intake and vitamin D supplementation |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T02%3A32%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20research%20waste%20part%201:%20an%20exemplar%20from%20examining%20study%20design,%20surrogate%20and%20clinical%20endpoints%20in%20studies%20of%20calcium%20intake%20and%20vitamin%20D%20supplementation&rft.jtitle=BMC%20medical%20research%20methodology&rft.au=Bolland,%20Mark%20J&rft.date=2018-10-10&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.epage=10&rft.pages=103-10&rft.artnum=103&rft.issn=1471-2288&rft.eissn=1471-2288&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12874-018-0556-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2122740940%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-79d3d79711b215187b161dd6240d7c70478e933ccb046f382548f7f7701097e43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2122740940&rft_id=info:pmid/30305046&rfr_iscdi=true |