Loading…
Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education
Purpose Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radia...
Saved in:
Published in: | Emergency radiology 2024-12, Vol.31 (6), p.851-866 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3 |
container_end_page | 866 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 851 |
container_title | Emergency radiology |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Eibschutz, Liesl Lu, Max Yang Jannatdoust, Payam Judd, Angela C. Justin, Claire A. Fields, Brandon K.K. Demirjian, Natalie L. Rehani, Madan Reddy, Sravanthi Gholamrezanezhad, Ali |
description | Purpose
Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers.
Methods
We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos.
Results
108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment (
p
= 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level (
p
= 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees (
p
|
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11625072</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3141982050</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1v3CAQhlHUqEmT_oEeKqReenE7GGxDLlEVJW2lSLkkZ8RicIhscABH2lP_etns5quHHoCBeeaF4UXoE4FvBKD7nggQBhXUrIyas4rtoUPCKK_K1Lx7FR-gDyndAUArWv4eHVDBSszoIfpzPpk4GK_X2E1qcH7Acww56DAmbEMsOzN45TOeVXbG53SCFZ6WMbvK-ZRdXrILXo1Y-X53jtNstFNjXmMdpllFl4LHweL5dp1cyXhs-kWrTeEx2rdqTObjbj1CNxfn12e_qsurn7_PflxWmjZtrnqhmxXw3tqV0K3mnAkQlBliekVAW9GVbngHXBmxqjnlthXK2lqIrlNALD1Cp1vdeVlNptelk6hGOcfSdVzLoJx8m_HuVg7hQRLS1g10dVH4ulOI4X4xKcvJJW3GUXkTliRpISnlHLqCfvkHvQtLLJ-0oRgRvIYGClVvKR1DStHY59cQkBuD5dZgWQyWjwZLVoo-v-7jueTJ0QLQLZBKyg8mvtz9H9m_xFK0dg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3141982050</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Eibschutz, Liesl ; Lu, Max Yang ; Jannatdoust, Payam ; Judd, Angela C. ; Justin, Claire A. ; Fields, Brandon K.K. ; Demirjian, Natalie L. ; Rehani, Madan ; Reddy, Sravanthi ; Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creator><creatorcontrib>Eibschutz, Liesl ; Lu, Max Yang ; Jannatdoust, Payam ; Judd, Angela C. ; Justin, Claire A. ; Fields, Brandon K.K. ; Demirjian, Natalie L. ; Rehani, Madan ; Reddy, Sravanthi ; Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers.
Methods
We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos.
Results
108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment (
p
= 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level (
p
= 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1438-1435</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1070-3004</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-1435</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39400643</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clinical Competence ; Clinical Protocols ; Confidence ; Confidence intervals ; Education ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Emergency Medicine ; Emergency Medicine - education ; Emergency procedures ; Emergency response ; Female ; Guidelines ; Humans ; Imaging ; Ionizing radiation ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Obstetrics - education ; Original ; Original Article ; Patients ; Physicians ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging ; Questions ; Radiation ; Radiation effects ; Radiology ; Radiology - education ; Response rates ; Subgroups ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States</subject><ispartof>Emergency radiology, 2024-12, Vol.31 (6), p.851-866</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024 corrected publication 2024</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s).</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Dec 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6930-4246</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39400643$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eibschutz, Liesl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Max Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jannatdoust, Payam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Judd, Angela C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Justin, Claire A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fields, Brandon K.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirjian, Natalie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehani, Madan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Sravanthi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creatorcontrib><title>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</title><title>Emergency radiology</title><addtitle>Emerg Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Emerg Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose
Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers.
Methods
We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos.
Results
108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment (
p
= 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level (
p
= 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Clinical Protocols</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine - education</subject><subject>Emergency procedures</subject><subject>Emergency response</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Ionizing radiation</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Obstetrics - education</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation effects</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology - education</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1438-1435</issn><issn>1070-3004</issn><issn>1438-1435</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1v3CAQhlHUqEmT_oEeKqReenE7GGxDLlEVJW2lSLkkZ8RicIhscABH2lP_etns5quHHoCBeeaF4UXoE4FvBKD7nggQBhXUrIyas4rtoUPCKK_K1Lx7FR-gDyndAUArWv4eHVDBSszoIfpzPpk4GK_X2E1qcH7Acww56DAmbEMsOzN45TOeVXbG53SCFZ6WMbvK-ZRdXrILXo1Y-X53jtNstFNjXmMdpllFl4LHweL5dp1cyXhs-kWrTeEx2rdqTObjbj1CNxfn12e_qsurn7_PflxWmjZtrnqhmxXw3tqV0K3mnAkQlBliekVAW9GVbngHXBmxqjnlthXK2lqIrlNALD1Cp1vdeVlNptelk6hGOcfSdVzLoJx8m_HuVg7hQRLS1g10dVH4ulOI4X4xKcvJJW3GUXkTliRpISnlHLqCfvkHvQtLLJ-0oRgRvIYGClVvKR1DStHY59cQkBuD5dZgWQyWjwZLVoo-v-7jueTJ0QLQLZBKyg8mvtz9H9m_xFK0dg</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Eibschutz, Liesl</creator><creator>Lu, Max Yang</creator><creator>Jannatdoust, Payam</creator><creator>Judd, Angela C.</creator><creator>Justin, Claire A.</creator><creator>Fields, Brandon K.K.</creator><creator>Demirjian, Natalie L.</creator><creator>Rehani, Madan</creator><creator>Reddy, Sravanthi</creator><creator>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><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>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4246</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</title><author>Eibschutz, Liesl ; Lu, Max Yang ; Jannatdoust, Payam ; Judd, Angela C. ; Justin, Claire A. ; Fields, Brandon K.K. ; Demirjian, Natalie L. ; Rehani, Madan ; Reddy, Sravanthi ; Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Clinical Protocols</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine - education</topic><topic>Emergency procedures</topic><topic>Emergency response</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Ionizing radiation</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Obstetrics - education</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation effects</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology - education</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eibschutz, Liesl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Max Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jannatdoust, Payam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Judd, Angela C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Justin, Claire A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fields, Brandon K.K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirjian, Natalie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehani, Madan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Sravanthi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Emergency radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eibschutz, Liesl</au><au>Lu, Max Yang</au><au>Jannatdoust, Payam</au><au>Judd, Angela C.</au><au>Justin, Claire A.</au><au>Fields, Brandon K.K.</au><au>Demirjian, Natalie L.</au><au>Rehani, Madan</au><au>Reddy, Sravanthi</au><au>Gholamrezanezhad, Ali</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education</atitle><jtitle>Emergency radiology</jtitle><stitle>Emerg Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Emerg Radiol</addtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>851</spage><epage>866</epage><pages>851-866</pages><issn>1438-1435</issn><issn>1070-3004</issn><eissn>1438-1435</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers.
Methods
We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos.
Results
108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either “fairly” (58/124, 47%) or “very” (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment (
p
= 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level (
p
= 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>39400643</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4246</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1438-1435 |
ispartof | Emergency radiology, 2024-12, Vol.31 (6), p.851-866 |
issn | 1438-1435 1070-3004 1438-1435 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11625072 |
source | Springer Link |
subjects | Adult Clinical Competence Clinical Protocols Confidence Confidence intervals Education Emergency medical care Emergency medical services Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine - education Emergency procedures Emergency response Female Guidelines Humans Imaging Ionizing radiation Medical imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Obstetrics - education Original Original Article Patients Physicians Pregnancy Pregnancy Complications - diagnostic imaging Questions Radiation Radiation effects Radiology Radiology - education Response rates Subgroups Surveys and Questionnaires United States |
title | Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T02%3A28%3A04IST&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=Emergency%20imaging%20protocols%20for%20pregnant%20patients:%20a%20multi-institutional%20and%20multi-%20specialty%20comparison%20of%20physician%20education&rft.jtitle=Emergency%20radiology&rft.au=Eibschutz,%20Liesl&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=851&rft.epage=866&rft.pages=851-866&rft.issn=1438-1435&rft.eissn=1438-1435&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3141982050%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-d9c5b08dffb9c6c88490934e1eda10cf976438708ae9b2838f69aff29977a01f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3141982050&rft_id=info:pmid/39400643&rfr_iscdi=true |