Placebos

安慰剂
  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    这项双盲的单中心子研究,随机化,安慰剂对照试验旨在确定瑞舒伐他汀96周对中度心血管风险(Framingham风险评分10-15%)的HIV男性(n=55,54年)脉搏波传导速度(PWV)的影响.瑞舒伐他汀[0.54m/s标准差(SED)0.26]和安慰剂[0.50m/s(SED0.26)的PWV均增加,P=0.896]臂,导致第96周PWV无差异[瑞舒伐他汀9.40m/s(SE0.31);安慰剂9.21m/s(SE0.31),P=0.676]。
    This single-centre substudy of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial aimed to determine the effect of 96 weeks of rosuvastatin on pulse wave velocity (PWV) in men (n = 55, 54 years) with HIV at moderate cardiovascular risk (Framingham risk score 10-15%). PWV increased in both rosuvastatin [0.54 m/s standard error of difference (SED) 0.26] and placebo [0.50 m/s (SED 0.26), P = 0.896] arms, leading to no difference in PWV at week 96 [rosuvastatin 9.40 m/s (SE 0.31); placebo 9.21 m/s (SE0.31), P = 0.676].
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:月经周期不规则的患病率为81.7%至96.3%。最近的研究表明,顺势疗法是患有各种妇科疾病的女性最受欢迎的选择之一。该试验旨在将个性化顺势疗法药物(IHMPs)与外观相同的安慰剂区分开来,以治疗早期生殖女性的月经不调。设计:双盲,随机化(1:1),两个平行的臂,安慰剂对照试验。设置:D.N.De同势医学院和医院,加尔各答,西孟加拉邦,印度。受试者:92名女性月经不调。干预措施:第一组(n=46;IHMPs加伴随护理)与对照组(n=46;安慰剂加伴随护理)。结果测量:主要-可以连续三个周期纠正月经不调的早期生殖女性比例;次要-月经困扰问卷(MDQ)总分;所有这些都在基线和每月进行测量,长达4个月。结果:分析了意向治疗样本(n=92)。通过具有分类结果的卡方检验检查了群体差异,考虑时间效应相互作用的双向重复测量方差分析,和非配对t检验,比较每月单独获得的平均估计值。显著性水平设定为p<0.05双尾。经过4个月的干预,主要结局的组间差异无统计学意义-IHMPs:22/46v/s安慰剂:24/46,卡方(Yates校正)=0.043,p=0.835.在MDQ总分(F1,90=0.054,p=0.816)和分量表评分中观察到的改善在IHMPs组中高于安慰剂组,然而,在大多数情况下,统计上并不显著,除了行为变化分量表(F1,90=0.029,p<0.001)。白头翁是最常用的处方药。肯特的《剧目》和赞德沃特的《完整剧目》是最常用的剧目。两组均未报告任何伤害或严重不良事件。结论:分析未能清楚地证明IHMPs在除一项结果外的所有结果中均有效。未来的试验可能会寻求更合适的结果指标。临床试验登记号:CTRI/2022/04/041659。
    Objectives: Prevalence of irregular menstrual cycle ranges from 81.7% to 96.3%. Recent research suggested that homeopathy is one of the most popular choices for women with various gynecological disorders. This trial was aimed at differentiating individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) from identical-looking placebos in the treatment of menstrual irregularities in early reproductive women. Design: Double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Subjects: Ninety-two females with menstrual irregularities. Interventions: Group verum (n = 46; IHMPs plus concomitant care) versus group control (n = 46; placebos plus concomitant care). Outcome Measures: Primary-The proportion of early reproductive females in whom menstrual irregularities can be corrected for consecutive three cycles; Secondary-Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ) total score; all of them were measured at baseline and every month, up to 4 months. Results: Intention-to-treat sample (n = 92) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by chi-squared tests with categorical outcomes, two-way repeated measure analysis of variance accounting for the time-effect interactions, and unpaired t-tests comparing the mean estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 two-tailed. After 4 months of intervention, the group difference in the primary outcome was nonsignificant statistically-IHMPs: 22/46 v/s placebo: 24/46, chi-square (Yates corrected) = 0.043, p = 0.835. The improvement observed in the MDQ total score (F1,90 = 0.054, p = 0.816) and subscales scores were higher in the IHMPs group than in placebos, however statistically nonsignificant in most of the occasions, except for the behavioral change subscale (F1,90 = 0.029, p < 0.001). Pulsatilla nigricans was the most frequently prescribed medicine. Kent\'s Repertory and Zandvoort\'s Complete Repertory were the most frequently used repertories. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either group. Conclusions: The analysis failed to demonstrate clearly that IHMPs were effective beyond placebos in all but one of the outcomes. More appropriate outcome measures may be sought for future trials. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2022/04/041659.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:经皮神经电刺激(TENS)是一种非药物治疗,通过在疼痛部位附着于皮肤的电极传递电流。它可以替代药物治疗。TENS缓解疼痛的作用机制与抑制疼痛刺激的传递有关,内源性阿片类药物的释放,减少子宫的肌肉缺血。尽管它已用于原发性痛经((PD);经期疼痛或月经来潮),高频TENS的有效性和安全性的证据,低频TENS,或其他治疗PD是有限的。
    目的:为了评估经皮神经电刺激(TENS)与安慰剂的有效性和安全性,没有治疗,和其他治疗原发性痛经(PD)。
    方法:我们搜索了妇科和生育组的对照试验专业注册,中部,MEDLINE,Embase,PsycINFO,AMED,CINAHL,以及截至2024年4月9日的韩语和中文数据库。我们还在试验登记处和相关研究的参考列表中搜索了正在进行的试验,以获得更多试验。未应用语言限制。
    方法:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT),其中包括患有PD的女性(12至49岁)。纳入试验将低频TENS或高频TENS与其他TENS进行了比较,安慰剂,或其他治疗。
    方法:四位综述作者筛选了试验,根据协议提取数据,使用RoB2评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE方法评估所有综述比较和主要结局(即疼痛缓解和不良反应)的证据确定性.
    结果:此评论取代了当前的评论,2009年发表。我们纳入了20项RCT,涉及585名具有高频TENS的随机女性,低频TENS,安慰剂或不治疗,或其他治疗。我们包括五个比较:高频TENS与安慰剂或不治疗,低频TENS与安慰剂或不治疗,高频TENS与低频TENS,高频TENS与其他治疗相比,和低频TENS与其他治疗。与安慰剂或不治疗相比,高频TENS可以减轻疼痛(平均差异(MD)-1.39,95%置信区间(CI)-2.51至-0.28;10项随机对照试验,345名女性;低确定性证据;I2=88%)。三个RCT中有两个报告没有不良反应,因此我们无法估计高频TENS对不良反应的影响。低频TENS与安慰剂或无治疗相比,低频TENS可以减轻疼痛与安慰剂或无治疗相比(MD-2.04,95%CI-2.95至-1.14;3项随机对照试验,645名女性;低确定性证据;I2=0%)。没有试验报道这种比较的不良反应。高频TENS与低频TENS相比,不确定高频TENS是否对疼痛缓解有影响(MD0.89,95%CI-0.19至1.96;3项RCT,54名女性;低确定性证据;I2=0%)。一项试验提供了有关不良反应的数据,但未发生不良事件。高频TENS与其他治疗相比,不确定高频TENS与穴位按压相比是否对疼痛缓解有影响(MD-0.66,95%CI-1.72至0.40;1个RCT,18名女性;非常低的确定性证据),对乙酰氨基酚(扑热息痛)(MD-0.98,95%CI-3.30至1.34;1RCT,20名女性;确定性非常低的证据),和干扰电流治疗(MD-0.03,95%CI-1.04至0.98;2项随机对照试验,62名女性;低确定性证据;I2=0%)。不良反应的发生在高频TENS和NSAIDs之间没有显着差异(OR12.06,95%CI0.26至570.62;2个随机对照试验,88名女性;低确定性证据;I2=78%)。低频TENS与其他治疗相比,不确定低频TENS与对乙酰氨基酚相比是否对疼痛缓解有影响(MD-1.48,95%CI-3.61至0.65;1RCT,20名女性;确定性非常低的证据)。没有试验报道这种比较的不良反应。
    结论:与安慰剂或不治疗相比,高频TENS和低频TENS可以减轻疼痛。由于存在偏差的风险,我们降低了证据的确定性。未来的随机对照试验应更多地关注本综述的次要结果(例如,对额外镇痛药的要求,限制日常活动,或与健康相关的生活质量),并且应设计为确保低偏倚风险。
    BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological treatment that works by delivering electrical currents via electrodes attached to the skin at the site of pain. It can be an alternative to pharmacological treatments. The mechanism of action of TENS for pain relief is related to the inhibition of the transmission of painful stimuli, release of endogenous opioids, and reduced muscle ischaemia of the uterus. Although it has been used for primary dysmenorrhoea ((PD); period pain or menstrual cramps), evidence of the efficacy and safety of high-frequency TENS, low-frequency TENS, or other treatments for PD is limited.
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in comparison with placebo, no treatment, and other treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea (PD).
    METHODS: We searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group\'s Specialized Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, and the Korean and Chinese language databases up to 9 April 2024. We also searched for ongoing trials in trials registries and the reference lists of relevant studies for additional trials. Language restrictions were not applied.
    METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women (aged 12 to 49 years) with PD. Included trials compared low-frequency TENS or high-frequency TENS with other TENS, placebo, or other treatment.
    METHODS: Four review authors screened the trials, extracted the data according to the protocol, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2, and assessed the certainty of evidence for all review comparisons and primary outcomes (i.e. pain relief and adverse effects) using the GRADE approach.
    RESULTS: This review replaces the current review, published in 2009. We included 20 RCTs involving 585 randomized women with high-frequency TENS, low-frequency TENS, placebo or no treatment, or other treatment. We included five comparisons: high-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment, low-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment, high-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS, high-frequency TENS versus other treatments, and low-frequency TENS versus other treatments. High-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment High-frequency TENS may reduce pain compared with placebo or no treatment (mean difference (MD) -1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.51 to -0.28; 10 RCTs, 345 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 88%). Two out of three RCTs reported no adverse effects and hence we were unable to estimate the effect of high-frequency TENS on adverse effects. Low-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment Low-frequency TENS may reduce pain compared with placebo or no treatment (MD -2.04, 95% CI -2.95 to -1.14; 3 RCTs, 645 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 0%). No trials reported adverse effects for this comparison. High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS It is uncertain whether high-frequency TENS had an effect on pain relief compared with low-frequency TENS (MD 0.89, 95% CI -0.19 to 1.96; 3 RCTs, 54 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 0%). One trial contributed data on adverse effects but no adverse events occurred. High-frequency TENS versus other treatments It is uncertain whether high-frequency TENS had an effect on pain relief compared to acupressure (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.72 to 0.40; 1 RCT, 18 women; very low-certainty evidence), acetaminophen (paracetamol) (MD -0.98, 95% CI -3.30 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence), and interferential current therapy (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.98; 2 RCTs, 62 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 0%). The occurrence of adverse effects did not differ significantly between high-frequency TENS and NSAIDs (OR 12.06, 95% CI 0.26 to 570.62; 2 RCTs, 88 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 78%). Low-frequency TENS versus other treatments It is uncertain whether low-frequency TENS had an effect on pain relief compared with acetaminophen (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.61 to 0.65; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported adverse effects for this comparison.
    CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency TENS and low-frequency TENS may reduce pain compared with placebo or no treatment. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the risk of bias. Future RCTs should focus more on secondary outcomes of this review (e.g. requirement for additional analgesics, limitation of daily activities, or health-related quality of life) and should be designed to ensure a low risk of bias.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究旨在调查免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)试验中安慰剂报告的免疫相关不良事件(irAE)的开发不足的发生率。
    方法:我们在公共数据库中搜索了ICI与安慰剂治疗恶性肿瘤患者的随机临床试验(RCT)。使用随机效应模型提取研究特征和irAE发生情况进行荟萃分析。
    结果:报告经历任何级别和3至5级安慰剂irAE的患者比例;在实验组中报告“假”irAE的风险比(RR)(定义为“假irAE比”,通过将安慰剂组中记录有irAE的患者比例除以实验组中的比例来计算)。
    结果:分析了47例RCTs和30,119例患者。安慰剂参与者中报告经历任何级别和3至5级irAE的患者的合并比例为22.85%(17.33%-29.50%)和3.40%(2.35%-4.63%),分别。经历严重irAE的安慰剂治疗患者的合并比例为0.67%(0.03%-1.91%)。0.69%(<0.01%-1.30%)和0.12%(<0.01%-0.40%)的患者因安慰剂irAE而停止治疗和死亡,分别。任何级别和3至5级irAE的假irAE比率分别为0.49和0.28。安慰剂加非免疫疗法对照组的RCT中的假irAE比率明显高于单独使用安慰剂的RCT(任何等级:0.57vs.0.32,P<0.001;3至5级:0.36vs.0.12,P=0.009)。
    结论:我们对ICI随机对照试验中安慰剂治疗参与者的分析记录了安慰剂不良反应的常见发生率。这些发现对于解释irAE概况很重要,避免不适当的治疗干预。
    OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the underexplored prevalence of placebo-reported immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials.
    METHODS: We searched public databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving ICI versus placebo treatments in patients with malignancies. Study characteristics and irAEs occurrences were extracted for meta-analyses using a random-effects model.
    RESULTS: Proportions of patients reported to experience any grade and grade 3 to 5 placebo irAEs; the risk ratio (RR) of reporting \'false\' irAEs in the experiment arm (defined as \'false-irAE ratio\', calculated by dividing the proportion of patients documented with irAEs in the placebo arm by that in the experimental arm).
    RESULTS: 47 RCTs with 30,119 patients were analyzed. The pooled proportion of patients reported to experience any grade and grade 3 to 5 irAEs among placebo participants was 22.85 % (17.33 %-29.50 %) and 3.40 % (2.35 %-4.63 %), respectively. The pooled proportion of placebo-treated patients who experienced serious irAEs was 0.67 % (0.03 %-1.91 %). Treatment discontinuation and death due to placebo irAEs occurred in 0.69 % (<0.01 %-1.30 %) and 0.12 % (<0.01 %-0.40 %) of patients, respectively. The false-irAE ratio for any grade and grade 3 to 5 irAEs were 0.49 and 0.28. The false-irAE ratio was significantly higher in RCTs with control arms of placebo plus non-immunotherapy than in those with placebo alone (any grade: 0.57 vs. 0.32, P < 0.001; grade 3 to 5: 0.36 vs. 0.12, P = 0.009).
    CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of placebo-treated participants in ICI RCTs document the common occurrence of placebo irAEs. These findings are important for interpreting irAE profiles, avoiding inappropriate therapeutic interventions.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Letter
    在安慰剂对照随机临床试验中,坚持安慰剂通常被认为对感兴趣的主要结果没有影响:当使用无偏见的方法时,调查人员希望估计无效。因此,在这些情况下,评估坚持安慰剂的效果已被提出并推广为检测偏倚的策略,例如,来自无法测量的混淆。这种策略可以被视为一种阴性对照暴露的应用,我们称之为安慰剂依从性阴性对照暴露。这里,我们正式陈述了它的定义假设,并讨论了单世界干预图对它们进行推理的独特优势。
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:IgA肾病(IgAN)是原发性肾小球肾炎的最常见原因。它是一种异质性疾病,具有不同的表现和高发病率。30%的成年人和20%的儿童(随后进入成年期)将在10年后肾功能下降50%或发展为肾衰竭。
    目的:探讨免疫抑制治疗儿童IgAN的利弊。
    方法:我们联系了信息专家,并使用与本评论相关的搜索词搜索了截至2023年10月3日的Cochrane肾脏和移植研究注册。登记册中的研究是通过对CENTRAL的搜索确定的,MEDLINE,和EMBASE,会议记录,国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)搜索门户,和ClinicalTrials.gov.
    方法:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)和非随机干预研究(NRSIs),研究了与安慰剂相比,免疫抑制治疗儿童IgAN的治疗。没有治疗,支持性护理,标准疗法(日本方案),其他免疫抑制疗法或非免疫抑制疗法。
    方法:两位作者独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。随机效应荟萃分析用于总结治疗效果的估计。治疗效果以风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)表示,以及连续结局的平均差(MD)和95%CI。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估RCT偏倚风险,使用ROBIN-I工具评估NRSIs偏倚风险。使用建议分级评估证据的确定性,评估,发展,和评价(等级)。
    结果:本综述包括13项研究,有686名参与者。十个RCT包括334名儿童和191名成人,三名NRSIs包括151名参与者,所有的孩子。大多数参与者患有轻度肾脏疾病。与分配隐藏有关的大多数领域的偏见风险尚不清楚,致盲参与者,人员,和结果评估。在有IgAN的孩子中,尚不确定皮质类固醇(类固醇)治疗,与安慰剂相比,蛋白尿减少(1项研究,64名儿童和年轻人:RR0.47,95%CI0.13至1.72;低确定性证据)或估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)的下降(1项研究,64名儿童和年轻人:RR0.47,95%CI0.09至2.39;低确定性证据)。与支持治疗相比,类固醇是否能减少蛋白尿还不确定(2项研究,61名儿童:RR0.04,95%CI-0.83至0.72;低确定性证据)。由于类固醇方案的异质性,未评估与类固醇治疗相关的不良事件。包括剂量和持续时间,纳入研究缺乏对不良事件的系统评估。硫唑嘌呤,霉酚酸酯,mizoribine,或环磷酰胺单独或联合类固醇治疗对改善IgAN患儿的蛋白尿或预防eGFR下降的效果不确定.鱼油,维生素E和扁桃体切除术对改善蛋白尿或预防eGFR下降的效果不确定.其他免疫抑制疗法的效果,由于数据不足,次要结局和不良事件未进行评估.
    结论:缺乏指导儿童IgAN治疗的高质量证据。没有证据表明类固醇,其他免疫抑制疗法,或者扁桃体切除术,当添加到最佳支持性护理中时,预防IgAN患儿eGFR下降或蛋白尿。现有的研究很少,数字很小,低质量的证据,高或不确定的偏见风险,没有系统地评估与治疗相关的危害,或报告净收益或危害。IgAN的严重病例和非典型表现未包括在审查的研究中。我们的发现不能推广到这些情况。
    IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common cause of primary glomerulonephritis. It is a heterogeneous disease with different presentations and high morbidity. Thirty per cent of adults and 20% of children (followed into adulthood) will have a 50% decline in kidney function or develop kidney failure after 10 years.
    To determine the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of IgAN in children.
    We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 03 October 2023 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
    We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) investigating the treatment of IgAN in children with immunosuppressive therapies compared to placebo, no treatment, supportive care, standard therapy (Japanese protocol), other immunosuppressive therapies or non-immunosuppressive therapies.
    Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to summarise estimates of treatment effects. Treatment effects were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the ROBIN-I tool for NRSIs. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).
    This review included 13 studies with 686 participants. Ten RCTs included 334 children and 191 adults, and three NRSIs included 151 participants, all children. Most participants had mild kidney disease. The risk of bias was unclear for most of the domains relating to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessment. In children with IgAN, it is uncertain if corticosteroid (steroid) therapy, compared to placebo reduces proteinuria (1 study, 64 children and young adults: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; low certainty evidence) or the decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (1 study, 64 children and young adults: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.39; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain if steroids reduce proteinuria compared to supportive care (2 studies, 61 children: RR 0.04, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.72; low certainty evidence). Adverse events associated with steroid therapy were not assessed due to heterogeneity in steroid protocols, including dose and duration, and lack of systematic assessment for adverse events in the included studies. Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, mizoribine, or cyclophosphamide alone or in combination with steroid therapy had uncertain effects on improving proteinuria or preventing eGFR decline in children with IgAN. Fish oil, vitamin E and tonsillectomy had uncertain effects on improving proteinuria or preventing eGFR decline. Effects of other immunosuppressive therapies, secondary outcomes and adverse events were not assessed due to insufficient data.
    There is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide the management of IgAN in children. There is no evidence to indicate that steroids, other immunosuppressive therapies, or tonsillectomy, when added to optimal supportive care, prevent a decline in eGFR or proteinuria in children with IgAN. Available studies were few, with small numbers, low-quality evidence, high or uncertain risk of bias, did not systematically assess harms associated with treatment, or report net benefits or harms. Severe cases and atypical presentations of IgAN were not included in the reviewed studies, and our findings cannot be generalised to these situations.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号