BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Patient-reported outcomes and acupuncture-related adverse events are overlooked in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.","authors":"Yuting Duan, Pinge Zhao, Shujuan Liu, Siqi Wu, Yuening Deng, Zhirui Xu, Xinyu Li, Lin Shi, Yao Wu, Yuejuan Cai, Feng Jiang, Lin Yu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113497","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and acupuncture-related adverse events (A-AEs) in acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We comprehensively searched for eligible studies between 1 January 2014 and 1 May 2024, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP Database.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs that used acupuncture as the intervention group to obtain the efficacy and/or safety of acupuncture therapy. Acupuncture therapy should be based on Traditional Medicine theory.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>We assessed (1) the general characteristics of acupuncture RCTs; (2) the general characteristics of PROs; (3) the reporting scores of PROs by the Extension of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT PRO Extension); (4) the general characteristic of A-AEs; (5) the incidence of A-AEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 476 studies in this study. 296 (62.2%) used PROs as study outcomes, 272 (57.1%) reported safety outcomes. The Visual Analogue Scale (149, 23.7%) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (42, 6.7%) were the most common PROs reported. The reporting of PROs was incomplete, with sufficiently reporting scores ranging from 2.7% to 97.6% across the CONSORT PRO Extension. 164 studies reported A-AEs, of which 141 reported specific details, and we found that the OR for the incidence of AEs in the acupuncture group compared to the control group was 1.434 (95% CI 1.148 to 1.793). We identified 1277 reports of A-AEs in eligible studies, predominantly tissue injury (eg, haematoma, bleeding), irritation (eg, pain, post-acupuncture discomfort), with no reports of serious A-AEs. The reporting of A-AEs lacked details on the acquisition methods (15.5%), occurrence time (5.5%), A-AEs' treatment (18.1%) and A-AEs' recovery (19.7%). Studies that reported funding, registry information, acupuncturist qualifications and non-significant primary outcomes were associated with the A-AEs' reporting, and the difference was statistically significant (p≤0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found that the reporting of PROs and A-AEs was insufficient in acupuncture RCTs. Future studies should clarify the clinical significance of using PROs as outcomes and report AEs comprehensively to provide patients with sufficient information on the benefits and harms of acupuncture treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143973990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Time deficiency: an affliction of healthcare systems and how to ameliorate it.","authors":"Stephen H Bradley, Victor M Montori","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113455","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113455","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143959396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Challenges in the selection and measurement of outcomes in psychiatric trials.","authors":"Sophie Juul, Pascal Faltermeier, Faiza Siddiqui, Johanne Juul Petersen, Caroline Barkholt Kamp, Rikke Hermann Jakobsen, Lehana Thabane, Joanna Moncrieff, Mark Horowitz, Zainab Samaan, Michael Pascal Hengartner, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Markus Harboe Olsen, Christian Gluud, Janus Christian Jakobsen","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113171","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143967720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Toward automating GRADE classification: a proof-of-concept evaluation of an artificial intelligence-based tool for semiautomated evidence quality rating in systematic reviews.","authors":"Alisson Oliveira Dos Santos, Vinícius Silva Belo, Tales Mota Machado, Eduardo Sérgio da Silva","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113123","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evaluation of the quality of evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) is essential for assertive decision-making. Although Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) affords a consolidated approach for rating the level of evidence, its application is complex and time-consuming. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to overcome these barriers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Analytical experimental study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective is to develop and appraise a proof-of-concept AI-powered tool for the semiautomation of an adaptation of the GRADE classification system to determine levels of evidence in SRs with meta-analyses compiled from randomised clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The URSE-automated system was based on an algorithm created to enhance the objectivity of the GRADE classification. It was developed using the Python language and the React library to create user-friendly interfaces. Evaluation of the URSE-automated system was performed by analysing 115 SRs from the Cochrane Library and comparing the predicted levels of evidence with those generated by human evaluators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The open-source URSE code is available on GitHub (http://www.github.com/alisson-mfc/urse). The agreement between the URSE-automated GRADE system and human evaluators regarding the quality of evidence was 63.2% with a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.44. The metrics of the GRADE domains evaluated included accuracy and F1-scores, which were 0.97 and 0.94 for imprecision (number of participants), 0.73 and 0.7 for risk of bias, 0.9 and 0.9 for I² values (heterogeneity) and 0.98 and 0.99 for quality of methodology (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results demonstrate the potential use of AI in assessing the quality of evidence. However, in consideration of the emphasis of the GRADE approach on subjectivity and understanding the context of evidence production, full automation of the classification process is not opportune. Nevertheless, the combination of the URSE-automated system with human evaluation or the integration of this tool into other platforms represents interesting directions for the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143802476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Leading with options or issues to support purposeful shared decision-making in clinical practice.","authors":"Ricardo Loor-Torres, Yvonne Bui, Karina Dahl Steffensen, Anja Fog Heen, Thomas Agoritsas, Marleen Kunneman, Meg E Carley, Esteban Cabezas, Dawn Stacey, Ian Hargraves, Victor M Montori","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113322","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143762546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Advancing evidence-based medicine in China: an interview with Gordon Guyatt.","authors":"Huanyuan Luo, Qianling Shi, Dexing Zhang, Xuan Yu, Yue Yong, Guobao Li, Liang Li, Bohan Li, Yaolong Chen, Dong Roman Xu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113489","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143762543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Efficacy of open-label placebos for premenstrual syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Antje Frey Nascimento, Jens Gaab, Bojana Degen, Mareike Rytz, Anja Holder, Dilan Sezer, Sarah Buergler, Andrea H Meyer, Irving Kirsch, Joe Kossowsky, Cosima Locher","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112875","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the efficacy and safety of open-label placebos (OLP) in premenstrual syndrome (PMS).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Switzerland, 2018-2020.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>150 women (18-45 years of age) with PMS or premenstrual dysphoric disorder.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Random assignment (1:1:1) to treatment as usual (TAU), OLP without treatment rationale (OLP-), or OLP with treatment rationale (OLP+). OLP consisted of two placebo pills per day for 6 weeks.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcomes were PMS symptom intensity and interference between groups across three menstrual cycles (MC1-MC3); adverse events (ie, safety) were measured at weeks 3 and 6 after the start of the intervention. Secondary outcomes were psychological and somatic subscales of PMS symptom intensity, and adherence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2 August 2018 to 3 December 2020, 150 women were randomly allocated to TAU (n=50), OLP- (n=50), and OLP+ (n=50), of whom 145 (96.7%) completed trial participation. Groups differed in symptom intensity (F(4)=4.419, p=0.002, r²=0.16) and interference (F(4)=3.159, p=0.014, r²=0.13) across three MCs. Mean symptom intensity at MC3 was lower for OLP+ compared to TAU (b=-9.97, SE=2.85, t(412)=3.50, p<0.001, d=0.90) and to OLP- (b=-6.10, SE=2.89, t(411)=2.11, p=0.036, d=0.55), but OLP- and TAU did not differ (b=-3.87, SE=2.87, t(411)=1.35, p=0.177, d=0.35). Mean interference at MC3 was lower for OLP+ compared to TAU (b=-1.23, SE=0.54, t(443)=2.30, p=0.022, d=0.55) and to OLP- (b=-1.10, SE=0.54, t(442)=2.02, p=0.044, d=0.48), but OLP- and TAU did not differ (b=-0.14, SE=0.54, t(442)=0.26, p=0.799, d=0.06). Four non-serious adverse events were reported in OLP- (n=1) and OLP+ (n=3). Improvement in psychological and somatic symptom intensity was comparable to primary outcomes. Adherence to the OLP intervention was high (93.18±18.95%), with no difference between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of our clinical trial indicate that OLP provided with a treatment rationale is an effective, safe, and acceptable treatment for PMS.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03547661 (submitted 2 May 2018).</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143708398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Safety implications of mask use: a systematic review and evidence map.","authors":"Wigdan Farah, Mohamed F Abusalih, Bashar Hasan, Elizabeth H Lees, Farah Fleti, Wiaam Y Elkhatib, Bruce D Johnson, Gary Toups, Michael Wolf, M Hassan Murad","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113028","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113028","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Widespread use of respiratory protection masks has become a critical component of public health response.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;This systematic review synthesises the evidence on the acute physiological, cognitive and psychological impacts associated with different types of masks and provides an evidence map of research gaps.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;A comprehensive search from 2000 to 2023 was conducted across multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, Scopus and PubMed). An umbrella systematic overview was conducted for physiological outcomes using existing systematic reviews. We conducted de novo systematic reviews for cognitive and psychological outcomes. Pairs of independent reviewers determined eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Certainty at an outcome level was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;The search resulted in 13 370 potential citations, leading to the inclusion of nine systematic reviews for physiological outcomes (87 primary studies) and 10 primary studies for cognitive and psychological outcomes (3815 participants), with the majority of participants being healthy adults. Studies evaluating physiological outcomes demonstrated that various types of masks have little to no significant difference in heart rate (surgical mask (mean difference (MD): 0.96 (-1.01 to 2.93)), N95 mask (MD: 1.63 (-2.79 to 6.05)) and cloth mask (MD: -0.94 (-6.39 to 4.52))) or respiratory rate during rest or exercise (surgical mask (MD: -1.35 (-3.00 to 0.29)), N95 mask (MD: 0.10 (-3.10 to 3.29)) and cloth mask (MD: -2.57 (-6.44 to 1.29)) (low certainty for most outcomes)). Mask use may be associated with very small changes in minute ventilation (surgical mask (MD: -13.9 (-20.30 to -7.53)) and N95 mask (MD: -16.3 (-28.7 to -3.9))), tidal volume (surgical mask (MD: -0.14 (-0.23 to -0.05)) and N95 mask (MD: -0.10 (-0.33 to 0.13))), oxygen saturation (surgical mask (MD: -0.59% (-0.87 to -0.30)), N95 mask (MD: -0.35% (-0.75 to 0.05)) and cloth mask (MD: -0.50% (-1.23; 0.24))), carbon dioxide partial pressure (surgical mask (standardised MD (SMD): 1.17 (0.70 to 1.64)) and N95 mask (SMD: 0.43 (0.08 to 0.79))) and exercise performance (surgical mask (SMD: -0.12 (-0.39 to 0.15)), N95 mask (SMD: -0.42 (-0.76 to -0.08)) and cloth mask (SMD: -0.26 (-0.54 to 0.02)) (low certainty for most outcomes)). Studies evaluating cognitive outcomes showed mixed results. Some studies reported reduced mental workload, and others showed no significant effect or decreased performance. The impact on attention, errors and reaction time was variable. These studies were small and at moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence was insufficient to estimate the effect of mask use on psychological outcomes (claustrophobia, depression and anxiety) as these studies were small, non-longitudinal and at high risk of bias.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"91-103"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12013569/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142341397","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Simple tool implementing Bucher's method for indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analyses.","authors":"Samuel James Tingle, Georgios Kourounis, Felix Liu, Colin H Wilson, Rachel Richardson, Josie Sandercock","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113103","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113103","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"130-133"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12013566/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141854719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in biomedical research: scoping review.","authors":"Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Isabelle Boutron, Lisa Bero, Andreas Lundh","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112967","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112967","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Peer review may improve the quality of research manuscripts and aid in editorial decisions, but reviewers can have conflicts of interest that impact on their recommendations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;The objective was to systematically map and describe the extent and nature of empirical research on peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in biomedical research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;Scoping review METHODS: In this scoping review, we included studies investigating peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in journal manuscripts, theses and dissertations, conference abstracts, funding applications and clinical guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Methodology Register, Google Scholar (up to January 2024) and other sources. Two authors independently included studies and extracted data on key study characteristics and results, and we organised data by study domain (eg, journal manuscripts) and study aims. We included studies directly investigating peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in our primary analysis, and studies investigating other questions (eg, reasons for retraction), but reporting relevant data on peer reviewers' conflicts of interest, were solely included in a supplementary analysis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;After screening 44 353 references, we included 71 studies, of which 41 were included in our primary analysis. The 41 studies were published between 2005 and 2023, and 34 (83%) were journal publications. 30 (73%) studies investigated journal manuscripts, 1 (2%) conference abstracts, 4 (10%) funding applications and 6 (15%) clinical guidelines. No studies investigated theses or dissertations. 37 (90%) studies used quantitative research methods, 2 (5%) qualitative and 2 (5%) mixed methods. 21 (51%) studies investigated both financial and non-financial interests, 6 (15%) solely financial interests, 5 (12%) solely non-financial interests and 9 (22%) did not report the type of interest. We organised included studies based on study aims, with some studies having multiple aims: impact on recommendations (one study), occurrence of peer reviewers' conflicts of interest (11 studies), stakeholders' experiences (13 studies) and policy and management (22 studies). One (2%) study investigated the impact of peer reviewers' personal connections with authors on reviewers' recommendations. Nine (22%) studies estimated prevalences of conflicts of interest among peer reviewers, ranging from 3%-91%. Two (5%) studies both reported that conflicts of interest were a reason for declining to review in 1% of cases. 13 (32%) studies investigated stakeholders' experiences with peer reviewers' conflicts of interest, primarily using questionnaires of reviewers, editors and researchers. 16 (39%) studies estimated prevalences of having conflict of interest policies for peer reviewers, ranging from 5%-96%, among journals, conferences and clinical guideline organisations. Finally, six (15%) studies es","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"104-117"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142944311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}