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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC medical research methodology 2018-10, Vol.18 (1), p.103-10, Article 103
Main Authors: Bolland, Mark J, Avenell, Alison, Grey, Andrew
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 &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Calcium intake</subject><subject>Dietary Supplements</subject><subject>Endpoint Determination</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical Waste - economics</subject><subject>Medical Waste - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Medical Waste - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Vitamins - administration &amp; 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 &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Calcium intake</topic><topic>Dietary Supplements</topic><topic>Endpoint Determination</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical Waste - economics</topic><topic>Medical Waste - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Medical Waste - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Vitamins - administration &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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