Journal of Clinical Epidemiology最新文献

{"title":"Prevalence and predictors of potentially inappropriate prescribing using codified STOPP-START and Beers criteria: a retrospective cohort study in Ontario's older population","authors":"Lise M. Bjerre ,&nbsp;Christina Catley ,&nbsp;Glenys Smith ,&nbsp;Roland Halil ,&nbsp;Timothy Ramsay ,&nbsp;Catriona Cahir ,&nbsp;Cristín Ryan ,&nbsp;Barbara Farrell ,&nbsp;Kednapa Thavorn ,&nbsp;Steven Hawken ,&nbsp;Ulrika Gillespie ,&nbsp;Douglas G. Manuel ,&nbsp;Kasim E. Abdulaziz","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111932","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111932","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To quantify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and assess the association between patient characteristics and PIP using previously coded STOPP-START and Beers criteria in Ontario's older population.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>An established subset of the 2014 STOPP-START and 2015 Beers criteria applicable to health administrative data were used to identify instances of PIP in health administrative data. Associations between the patient characteristics and PIP were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Using Ontario's large health administrative databases, which comprise individual-level, linked information on medication dispensation, physician services use, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, mortality, and sociodemographic data, a cohort including all patients ≥65 years who were issued at least 1 prescription between April 2003 and March 2017 (<em>N</em> = 2,937,927) was formed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From a total of 2,937,927 patients, 2,220,641 (75.6%) patients were identified with at least 1 PIP using the STOPP-START criteria. Using the Beers criteria, 1,505,243 (51.2%) patients were identified. The most common PIP identified by the STOPP-START criteria was the lack of pneumococcal vaccine to be given at least once after age 65 years according to national guidelines (75.9% of patients). Patient characteristics that were found to be strongly associated with PIP identified by both STOPP-START and Beers criteria were age, female sex, long-term care resident, lack of MedsCheck prior to index date, and frailty, among others.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Applying coding for identifying PIP in health administrative data is a promising approach to screen for PIP at the population level in an impactful and cost-effective manner. This approach will allow investigators to identify areas for intervention in terms of PIP in a population.</div></div><div><h3>Plain Language Summary</h3><div>We studied medication use in Ontario adults aged 65+ years to identify both potentially harmful or unnecessary prescriptions and important medications that were missing, using established prescribing guidelines. Among nearly 3 million Ontarians, 75% were prescribed at least 1 potentially inappropriate medication with the pneumococcal vaccine (76% of cases) being the most commonly missing medication. Those most at risk included adults over 85 years of age, women, long-term care residents, and people with frailty or no prior medication review. These findings show how health data can efficiently identify prescribing gaps, helping target interventions like improved vaccine programs or medication reviews to enhance safety for older adults.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111932"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144876701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fostering data sharing by encouraging researcher participation in secondary analyses","authors":"Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr.,&nbsp;Naichuan Su","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111934","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111934","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111934"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144862659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions: cross-cultural translation of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation plain language into Portuguese language","authors":"Suena Parahiba ,&nbsp;Gilson Dorneles ,&nbsp;Airton Tetelbom Stein ,&nbsp;Haliton Alves de Oliveira Junior ,&nbsp;Juliana C. Ferreira ,&nbsp;Luís C.L. Correia ,&nbsp;Priscila Torres ,&nbsp;Rachel Riera ,&nbsp;Sarah Nascimento Silva ,&nbsp;Tiago Matos ,&nbsp;Vania Canuto Santos ,&nbsp;Daniela Pachito ,&nbsp;Celina Borges Migliavaca ,&nbsp;Verônica Colpani ,&nbsp;Cinara Stein ,&nbsp;Maicon Falavigna","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111923","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111923","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Transparent and easy-to-understand communication can enhance the dissemination of systematic reviews (SRs) results to interest holders. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group developed an approach to improve the communication of results from SR of interventions in the English language. Here, we present the cross-cultural translation into Brazil Portuguese language of this approach.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>The cross-cultural adaptation of the approach to communicate the results into Brazilian Portuguese followed three steps: a) a qualitative research method was used to translate the informative statements designed by the GRADE Working Group and culturally adapted them into Brazilian Portuguese; b) Brazilian experts in evidence synthesis evaluated the content validity of the translated statements; and c) a quantitative cross-sectional study assessed the reliability and acceptability of the translated sentences.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One of the main challenges was adjusting the terms related to the classification of low and moderate certainty of evidence. Experts suggested the adoption of “average” instead \"moderate\" for effect size to avoid misleading in Portuguese, as it is also used for the classification of certainty of evidence. The group proposed to use the term \"average effect\" as an alternative to \"moderate effect.” Low acceptability (&lt;50%) was found in for some statements of low certainty of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The main contributions of this study were related to adjustments of English terms that are prone to diverse interpretations but share a similar translation in Portuguese. Through cultural adaptation processes, it is possible to ensure a higher level of understanding and clarity, enhancing the effectiveness of the use of GRADE in decision-making process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111923"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144859899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scoping review authors view knowledge user consultations as beneficial but not without challenges: a qualitative study","authors":"Elaine Toomey ,&nbsp;Armaghan Dabbagh ,&nbsp;Catherine Houghton ,&nbsp;Niamh O'Connell ,&nbsp;Ciara O'Meara ,&nbsp;Danielle Pollock ,&nbsp;Maureen Smith ,&nbsp;Andrea C. Tricco ,&nbsp;Heather Colquhoun","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111928","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111928","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Scoping reviews are a popular and influential form of evidence synthesis. Guidance has previously highlighted the importance of conducting knowledge user (KU) consultations within scoping reviews; however, their use has been limited to date, and the guidance is not clear regarding their methodology and indications for use. This has led to methodological ambiguity and uncertainty regarding KU consultation. We aimed to explore the views and experiences of scoping review authors on using KU consultations within scoping reviews.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A descriptive qualitative study design was used. We recruited scoping review authors who had previously conducted a KU consultation to participate in individual semi-structured interviews focusing on the conduct, value, utility, and impact of KU consultations within scoping reviews and the barriers and enablers to conducting them. We used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze interviews.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We conducted 15 interviews with 16 participants (one dyad). We identified three main themes; ‘Motivations to Do KU Consultations in Scoping Reviews’, ‘The Who, What, and How of Doing Consultations in Scoping Reviews’, and ‘Fostering Growth: Lessons Learned and Future Steps’.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Authors view KU consultations as a valuable methodological component of scoping reviews; however, sufficient resources and capacity are needed to conduct them. There is also a lack of clarity and consensus regarding what defines a consultation and how best to conduct them, particularly alongside other forms of KU involvement. Further guidance is needed to clarify the role of KU consultations within scoping reviews.</div></div><div><h3>Plain Language Summary</h3><div>Scoping reviews are a way of summarizing knowledge on a particular topic. In this study, we looked at how researchers use \"knowledge user consultations\" in scoping reviews. Knowledge users (KU) are people such as patients, policymakers, and health-care providers who can use the results of the research findings. Although using KU consultations in scoping reviews is recommended, it is not often done, and there is confusion about how and when to do it. We interviewed 16 researchers who have done KU consultations as part of a scoping review. From these interviews, we found three key themes: ‘Motivations to Do KU Consultations in Scoping Reviews’, ‘The Who, What, and How of Doing Consultations in Scoping Reviews’, and ‘Fostering Growth: Lessons Learned and Future Steps’. Overall, researchers felt that KU consultations are useful and add value, but they also said more resources and clearer guidance are needed to do them properly. There is still a lot of uncertainty about what counts as a consultation and how it should be done. More detailed and practical guidance would help make this process clearer for future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111928"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144856981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Response to Dr Sharma: “Re: Living recommendations do not ‘flip-flop’ – Examining the probability of directional changes to recommendations in living guidelines”","authors":"Heath White","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111929","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111929","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111929"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144849566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Modern Computational Tools to Support The Implementation and Accessibility of Clinical Risk Scores","authors":"Giorgio E.M. Melloni,&nbsp;Sabina A. Murphy,&nbsp;Marc S. Sabatine,&nbsp;Andrea Bellavia","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111927","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111927","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111927"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144823078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient research partners in core outcome set development: a systematic review","authors":"Nan-Su Huang ,&nbsp;Ian J. Saldanha ,&nbsp;Ann-Margret Ervin","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111926","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111926","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objectives</h3><div>A core outcome set (COS) is a minimal set of outcomes that clinical trials in a specific health or health-care area should report. Patient research partners (PRPs) should engage in all stages of COS development (coleading and codeveloping the COS). PRPs contribute the lived experience of a condition, and this perspective can improve the quality and uptake of COSs. However, there is variability in PRP responsibilities, which can impede meaningful involvement in COS development. The study aims to systematically review the roles of PRPs in COS development studies and compare their involvement strategies with available guidance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We included ongoing and completed COS development studies published in English that involved PRPs. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science on September 15, 2023. We applied COS-Standards for Development to assess the quality of the COS. We extracted, tabulated, and described details of the COS development studies.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our searches identified 2261 unique records, of which we included 94 articles describing 64 COS development studies. The earliest publication was in 2014. Forty-one (64%) studies cited the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook when designing patient engagement for COS development. Among research team members, the proportion who was PRPs was similar in studies that cited the COMET Handbook (17%) and in those that did not (17%). Sixty-nine percent of studies included PRPs but did not specifically include this nomenclature, and 31% also involved PRPs in other activities, such as Delphi studies and interviews. The studies described various PRP tasks, the most frequent of which were guiding the process (70%) and designing questionnaires (64%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This systematic review identified variations in PRP terminology, roles, and engagement across existing COS studies. We recommend that researchers refer to established guidelines, such as the COMET Handbook, for consistent PRP terminology and definitions. Such guidance can also help identify appropriate avenues for engaging patients as partners throughout the COS development process. These findings lay the foundation for future PRP involvement, aiming to balance meaningful engagement with feasibility in COS development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111926"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144812632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The number needed to treat: it is time to bow out gracefully","authors":"M. Hassan Murad ,&nbsp;Yngve Falck-Ytter ,&nbsp;Neha Ramachandran ,&nbsp;Perica Davitkov ,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Morgan","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111924","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111924","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple-to-understand absolute effect measure. However, it is only sensible when the risk difference is statistically significant. We highlight two important limitations of using NNT in the context of decision-making (developing a guideline, a policy decision, or a health technology assessment). The first limitation of NNT relates to difficulties in expressing and interpreting the confidence interval (CI) for the NNT when the CI of the risk difference includes the null (ie, the results are not statistically significant). This CI of NNT will be disjointed and will include implausible values. The second limitation of NNT relates to the increased complexity of trading off benefits and harms on the NNT scale. This proposal calls for abandoning the use of NNT from decision-making contexts.</div></div><div><h3>Plain Language Summary</h3><div>The number needed to treat (NNT) has statistical and methodological limitations that make it unhelpful in the context of developing clinical practice guidelines and policy decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111924"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144812655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: FAIRification of biomedical research data","authors":"Ka Hin Tai ,&nbsp;Marcel Müller ,&nbsp;Ulrich Mansmann ,&nbsp;Anna Catharina Vieira Armond ,&nbsp;Evelyne Decullier ,&nbsp;Anne Le Louarn ,&nbsp;Nchangwi Syntia Munung ,&nbsp;Florian Naudet ,&nbsp;Fabian Prasser ,&nbsp;Ulrich Sax","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111920","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111920","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable guiding principles promote Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of data to enhance data management and stewardship. In biomedicine, particular ethical, legal, and technical barriers complicate research data sharing. To help researchers overcome these challenges, we propose a framework of FAIRification from three dimensions – scientific, technical, and legal/ethical. We advocate for prospective FAIRification of study data, starting with a strong emphasis on planning for data-sharing from the beginning. Reflective questions throughout the process guide researchers to reflect on their situation. Researchers should assess resources and feasibility, secure technical and legal support, consider stakeholder needs, and devise an appropriate data sharing process. Given the sensitivity of biomedical data, confidentiality and security require careful attention. The data sharing strategy should be finalized before the study starts and documented in relevant study materials. Technical preparation for data sharing follows planning. Data should be well-documented with a data dictionary and metadata to facilitate reuse and provided in an accessible format. The data can be hosted on a repository to promote sharing and reuse. While a secure repository provides the technical foundation for data protection, effective administration is required to enforce data use agreements and licensing. We also discuss the importance of subsequent management upon data upload. Continued support for researchers and data maintenance are essential for effective reuse. Examples and resources to facilitate FAIRification are included to help researchers navigate challenges and ensure biomedical data are FAIR and reusable.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111920"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144800805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"GRADE concept paper 9: rationale and process for creating a GRADE Ontology","authors":"Paul Whaley ,&nbsp;Brian Alper ,&nbsp;Joanne Dehnbostel ,&nbsp;Carlos Alva-Diaz ,&nbsp;Stavros Antoniou ,&nbsp;Antonio Bognanni ,&nbsp;Javier Bracchiglione ,&nbsp;Therese Kristine Dalsbø ,&nbsp;Sean Grant ,&nbsp;Jennifer Hunter ,&nbsp;Alfonso Iorio ,&nbsp;Malgorzata Lagisz ,&nbsp;Harold Lehmann ,&nbsp;Sheyu Li ,&nbsp;Joerg Meerpohl ,&nbsp;Saphia Mokrane ,&nbsp;Cauê Monaco ,&nbsp;Ignacio Neumann ,&nbsp;Kevin Pottie ,&nbsp;Shahab Sayfi ,&nbsp;Holger Schünemann","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111921","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111921","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><div>As the rate of research production accelerates, the ability to efficiently and unambiguously communicate judgments relating to the synthesis, evaluation, and use of scientific information becomes paramount.</div></div><div><h3>Perspective</h3><div>Scientific information can be viewed as a “layered infrastructure” of data, evidence, knowledge, and use. The GRADE approach serves as a de facto data standard for this infrastructure, supporting movement between layers by reducing ambiguity in claims to knowledge (in the form of judgements of certainty in the evidence when answering research questions) and level of commitment to possible solutions to problems (in the form of strength of recommendations for interventions).</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This GRADE concept paper outlines the structure, purpose, and potential benefits of the GRADE Ontology for (a) the creators of, educators in, and users of systematic reviews, health guidelines, and health technology assessments, and (b) the development of tools that help with conducting, finding, and summarising the same. This paper also presents the processes for the development and maintenance of the GRADE Ontology, a formalised terminology standard within GRADE that will support the efficiency, rigour, consistency, and interoperability of GRADE's use.</div></div><div><h3>Plain Language Summary</h3><div>The rate of research production is increasing exponentially. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to quickly, efficiently, and unambiguously communicate the judgments made and processes used when doing research and using evidence to inform policy decisions. GRADE is a widely used approach to assessing certainty of evidence when answering research questions and making recommendations for health interventions, designed to help with the efficient and transparent evaluation and use of evidence. However, the absence of a formalized terminology standard within GRADE limits the efficiency with which the results of its use can be communicated. In response, the GRADE Ontology is being created. This concept paper outlines what an ontology is, how it helps with communicating scientific information, the specific benefits of the GRADE Ontology, and the processes for developing and maintaining a useful, valid ontology that supports the use of the GRADE approach.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 111921"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144796063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}