SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023193852> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±123 with 100 items per page.

W2023193852 endingPage "1168" @default.
W2023193852 startingPage "1157" @default.
W2023193852 abstract "Liver transplantation (LT) has increasingly been accepted as the standard of care for patients with irreversible advanced liver disease. Due to an expanded list of diseases that are accepted as indications for transplantation, for example, specific criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), coupled with a finite number of available organs, the national waiting list of patients has steadily grown. Nonetheless, the supply of donor organs has not kept pace, with currently 16% of patients dying on the waiting list without obtaining a transplant.1 This mortality rate has indicated a need to develop effective selection criteria for the more suitable candidates. Efforts to prepare patients so they are in the optimal state of physical and emotional health to adapt successfully after transplantation remain a priority. Recognizing the potential impact of psychiatric disorders, including addictions, on the liver transplant patient's outcome is essential. The aim of this article is to provide an overview the psychiatric disorders and issues with which the transplant hepatologist must be knowledgeable. In particular, this review evaluates how psychiatric and chemical dependency disorders may interfere with optimal adherence to recommended treatment and social support. In these complicated cases, psychiatric consultation can aid in the determination of the relative importance of a patient's psychiatric history and assist in preparing these individuals for transplantation. LT, liver transplantation; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ALD, alcoholic liver disease; MMT, methadone maintained; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder; SSRIs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibiting antidepressants. The objective of the pretransplant evaluation is to ensure that the patient is appropriate for transplantation. The current one- and five-year survival rates after liver transplantation over time has steadily increased to 86% and 72%, respectively.1 Nevertheless, patient compliance with immunosuppressive medication has been directly implicated in acute and chronic rejection episodes in organ transplant patients in general,2-4 with chronic rejection being the leading cause of graft loss for liver transplant recipients.5, 6 In fact for all types of organ transplants, noncompliance is responsible for up to 25% of late deaths posttransplant.2 Although there are no data indicating whether specific psychiatric disorders per se are associated with shorter life expectancy after transplantation, the potential impact of any disease process on survival is in large part amplified or tempered by the patient's success in adhering to treatment recommendations. Nonadherence encompasses many domains, including medication (particularly immunosuppressives), clinic appointments, laboratory tests, self-monitoring (blood pressure, glucose), exercise, and the use of harmful substances (alcohol and drugs).7 The LT literature has primarily focused on medication nonadherence. Medication nonadherence has been observed to be higher in patients with less satisfactory outcomes, for example, those relapsing with alcohol use.8 With advances in clinical research, more effective but often complex treatment plans are in use. Current management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) with interferon and ribavirin serves as an example. For instance, patients with recurrent HCV post-LT will require combination therapy that includes weekly self-administered injections, oral medication, and frequent weekly laboratory testing. Longer life expectancy and improved quality of life than in the past have been attributed to newer regimes of self-administered injections, oral medication, and frequent laboratory testing. Patients who cannot adhere to this program are at risk of increased morbidity and mortality. When a patient has previously demonstrated an inability to conform to the recommendations for one disease process, the possibility of nonadherence with the multifaceted lifelong treatment plan after LT is increased. Thus, how the candidate has adapted to illness and adhered to pre-LT medical directives should be evaluated (Table 2). Given the mortality rate among candidates waiting for LT, the rejection or loss of a transplanted liver due to nonadherence is a tragedy. Many factors contribute to nonadherence, including cognitive impairment, inability to communicate, rebelliousness, arrogance, denial of illness, lack of motivation, hopelessness, and inadequate social support. These traits are more frequently identified in patients with psychiatric or chemical dependency disorders. In a study of heart transplant recipients, Dew et al. described an increased risk of nonadherence depending on the number of psychosocial risk factors (Fig. 1).7 The following sections of this article, subdivided into major categories, will address the influence of a variety of psychiatric and addictive conditions on adherence. An increase of nonadherence is associated with an increased number of psychosocial risk factors in heart transplant recipients. Psychosocial factors include hostility, poor support from caregivers, poor support from friends, failure to use active coping strategies, and use of avoidant coping strategies. Adapted from Dew et al.7 The presence of an enduring social network is required to assist a patient who is otherwise compromised in achieving satisfactory survival and quality of life during the transplant process. The support persons should be capable of providing a combination of basic cares, transportation, medication verification as well as emotional sustenance during a challenging episode of care. Many transplant programs require the well-documented availability of more than one support person in case the identified person becomes unavailable. The primary sources of support are required to be closely involved from the initial stages of assessment, through hospitalization and the postoperative period. More institutions offer a supportive living environment, often called transplant houses, where patients can stay while pursuing medical care. However, since nursing care is not a service provided by these facilities, they mandate that a support person stay with the patient to provide assistance. The availability of a good social support system has been considered to be predictive of lower risk for recidivism and nonadherence, whereas poor or absent social support indicates high risk.9 Marriages and committed relationships have been reported to stay intact throughout the transplant experience.10 Patients who perceive themselves to have social support have been observed to have lower rates of depression.11 A study of diabetic patients undergoing pancreas transplantation found higher rates of social support was correlated with longer graft function.12 Support at the time of LT evaluation is essential for patients with cognitive impairment due to hepatic encephalopathy to comprehend and implement treatment interventions.9 The presence of enduring social support is less common in particular for patients with active personality disorders.13 Features of untreated depressive disorders include social withdrawal, helplessness, and irritability than can seriously strain marriages or committed relationships. Depressed patients can also become estranged from their family of origin and lack involvement in work, faith, or community organizations that can lead to supportive friends. Likewise, patients with active chemical dependency issues can become isolated from family or other networks that have become frustrated with the persistent nature of the patient's alcohol and drug use. Cognitive impairment related to hepatitic encephalopathy can result in unpredictable and provocative behavior that tests the patient's associates. Socially isolated individuals present to transplant programs without awareness that LT is an intensely demanding physical and emotional dependence making total self-sufficiency inadvisable. These patients expect that the transplant team and resources such as supportive transplant housing, where available, will suffice. As a result, transplant teams need to develop consistent guidelines and standards for assessing social support. Social workers and mental health professionals can provide guidance as to how a patient can identify new or enhanced sources of support. However, listing should be deferred until this support is clearly in place. Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is one of the most common types of liver disease in the U.S. and is more common in males (up to 75% of ALD cases).14 Individuals with end-stage alcoholic liver disease account for 15-27% of LT recipients, making ALD the second most common reason for liver transplantation.1, 15 While more than 12,000 individuals died from alcohol-related chronic liver disease in 2001,14 in that same year less than 900 individuals received a liver transplant for ALD.1 These numbers demonstrate that a substantial proportion of patients with ALD never come to transplantation. This suggests that strong biases still exist in referring such patients for transplantation. Assessment and referral by hepatologists knowledgeable of transplantation could significantly improve this deficiency. While the histopathological stages of ALD are well established, the amount of alcohol consumption necessary to develop the lesion are quite variable and no specific amount reliably predicts the development of ALD. Estimations of the threshold amount of ethanol exposure required to cause ALD have been reported both as a habitual intake (80 gm/day for men and 20 gm/day for women)16 and as a lifetime exposure (600 kg for men and 150-300 kg for women).17 Yet only 20% of those who drank 12 beers (approximately 120 gm) daily for 10 years (approximately 450 kg lifetime exposure) become cirrhotic.16 Thus, only some who drink excessively develop cirrhosis while others who report drinking modestly may develop ALD. Nevertheless ALD typically results from 10 to 20 years of heavy, sustained alcohol consumption. Given this requisite consumption pattern, patients with ALD are commonly referred to as “alcohol abusers.” Unfortunately, the terms “alcoholism” and “alcohol abuse” are often misused in the literature. Clear diagnostic criteria exist for alcohol use disorders (both alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence), yet these diagnoses are not commonly reported in the transplant literature most likely because nonpsychiatric physicians are unfamiliar with them. The correct diagnosis of an alcohol use disorder depends on stringent criteria, including physiological, psychological, social, occupational, behavioral, and duration criteria (see Table 1 for criteria of alcohol dependence, the more severe form of these disorders). In general, only 75% of those transplanted for ALD meet psychiatric diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence.18, 19 A thorough psychiatric assessment can help to gather a comprehensive history of alcohol use and associated problems as well as establish the correct alcohol disorder diagnosis and identify whether addiction treatment is indicated. This is especially important as patients may feel compelled to underreport or minimize their history in order to be accepted as a transplant candidate.20 Although >80% of liver transplant programs have a psychiatrist or addiction medicine specialist routinely see each patient with ALD,21 it is critical for the transplant hepatologist to understand the distinction between ALD and the diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorders. This has clinical relevance for both treatment recommendations and posttransplant relapse as discussed below. Transplant centers across the nation have very different selection criteria for patients with ALD. Many centers mandate a period of sustained sobriety (commonly defined as ≥6 months sober), adequate and available sober social supports, and previous addiction rehabilitation in order for patients with ALD to be considered as transplant candidates. Although selection criteria are increasingly challenged, a 1992 survey of 14 transplant centers across the nation highlights the enormous range in criteria with one center willing to consider patients with ALD drinking until transplantation, whereas other centers categorically refused all ALD candidates with <6 months' sobriety.22 However, most programs required those with <6 months' sobriety to attend rehabilitation before transplantation and could be considered, and no center would categorically reject a candidate with >6 months' but <1 year's sobriety.22 A 1993 survey of the selection practices of 41 transplant programs around the U.S. showed that current heavy alcohol use (80% of programs) and alcohol abuse within the past 6 months (24% of programs) were viewed as absolute contraindications to transplantation.23 Interestingly, at that time, no LT program felt current tobacco use was an absolute contraindication to liver transplantation23 (see tobacco use below). The belief that a specific length of pre-LT sobriety will guarantee post-LT sobriety is misguided. Alcohol use disorders are chronic medical illnesses often with a relapsing-remitting course. As with any chronic illness, treatment planning should focus on long-term treatment and monitoring. In addition, merely meeting a predetermined length of sobriety, especially in the context of end-stage liver disease, does not mean that an addiction is in remission or that addiction rehabilitation is not needed. For alcohol-dependent patients (not specifically LT patients), stable sobriety is measured in years, not months, with 5 years indicating stable sobriety.24 Thus, the use of a 6-month sobriety requirement for liver transplantation candidacy has most likely been necessitated by the end-stage illness of some ALD candidates at initial presentation who would not survive to achieve longer sobriety. For candidates with short sobriety, addiction counseling is highly recommended to provide education about addictions and the therapeutic tools to maintain abstinence. Addiction counseling can be beneficial at any point during abstinence, yet many ALD LT candidates have had no formal alcohol treatment or ever attended an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting (<50% at some centers).18, 25 Periodic reassessment of alcohol use is critical during the pretransplant wait period, as relapse rates up to 25% have been reported in wait-listed ADL candidates.26, 27 After transplantation, ALD recipients must be routinely reassessed for any alcohol use and commitment to sobriety with referral for addiction counseling if alcohol use has occurred. Inquiries about any alcohol consumption should be made at each follow-up appointment, and occasional or holiday drinking should not be taken lightly. Complete abstinence is recommended, as few ALD LT recipients can control their drinking or return to “social use”,8 and those who drink can quickly redevelop alcohol dependence.28 Even the use of nonalcoholic beers and wines is strongly discouraged because patients may relapse to regular alcohol from exposure to these drinks. In addition, routine monitoring for blood alcohol can aid in the detection of covert alcohol use. The majority of published studies of ALD LT recipients have defined post-LT alcohol use as any use. However, such a definition does not specifically identify an alcohol relapse or provide the ability to determine the contribution of alcohol exposure to medical outcomes. Since alcohol use can occur in a great variety of patterns, a well-designed study should evaluate the quantity, frequency, and duration of use. In addition, of the 21 studies of post-LT alcohol published since 1990, only three have a prospective design.29 Given these limitations, the reported one-year post-LT rate of any alcohol use (i.e., the percentage who used any alcohol by one year post-LT) ranges from 8% to 22%.30 By 5 years after LT, the rates of cumulative alcohol use are estimated from 30% to 50%.31, 32 Although these rates may seem discouraging, they compare favorably with the general population of alcohol-dependent individuals for whom two-year relapse rates of 60% to 80% are common following alcohol treatment.24 In addition, many LT recipients who relapse can be successfully treated in alcohol rehabilitation and do not continue sustained heavy levels of alcohol use. Thus, the rates of alcohol use that result in severe medical complications are estimated at 10% to 15%.33-35 Individual cases and small cohorts have reported the post-LT redevelopment of alcoholic liver disease including steatosis,36-38 histologic changes consistent with alcoholic steatohepatitis,36, 39, 40 and even alcohol-induced fibrosis.39-42 In some reports, pathologic changes are identified as early as 6 to 7 months post-LT.40, 42 In one report, 3 of 6 patients who resumed heavy alcohol use post-LT died from acute alcoholic hepatitis.43 A recent retrospective study of 128 ALD LT recipients stratified their post-LT alcohol consumption into three groups: complete abstainers (69%), occasional drinkers (<14 units/week, 10%), and heavy drinkers (>14 units/week or period of time with >4 units/day, 21%). Surprisingly, there were no differences in survival between the three groups at 8 years post-LT.44 However, alcohol use did contribute to nearly 15% of deaths in the heaviest drinkers.44 In addition, although rejection rates were not different between groups, all rejection episodes in the heavy drinkers were related to poor compliance with immunosuppressive drugs.44 In 81 patients who had liver biopsies, the heavy drinkers had significantly more fatty changes and fibrosis, and 14% had evidence of acute alcoholic hepatitis.44 Those who drank alcohol were significantly more likely also to smoke post-LT (P = 0.02), and although there were no differences between groups with respect to de novo malignancies, all of the oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas were in smokers. Given the complexities of the psychological, behavioral, and physiological antecedents to alcohol relapse, it is unlikely that a single pretransplant variable will reliably predict alcohol use. Studies have identified a number of factors predictive of pre-LT alcohol use, including a diagnosis of alcohol dependence,32 short pre-LT sobriety,32 a history of polysubstance use,33, 45, 46 a family history of alcoholism,32, 33, 47 previous addiction rehabilitation,32, 33, 45 and personality disorders.48, 49 Although length of sobriety predicts risk for alcohol use post-LT, <6 months' pre-LT sobriety has not consistently predicted those at risk to drink.8, 33 In one analysis, as the number of risk factors for alcohol use increased, so did the risk of relapse, suggesting that as predictors cumulate the risk to drink rises.28 Hepatitis C is the most common indication for liver transplantation in the U.S., accounting for nearly 2,000 liver transplants in 2004 (including those with co-morbid hepatitis B or alcoholic liver disease).1 The number of new infections with HCV in the U.S. has declined to about 30,000 with the majority of these infections incurred from illegally injected drug use.14 An estimated 2.7 million Americans are chronically infected with HCV, and 70% of these will develop chronic liver disease.14 Surprisingly little research has addressed the risks associated with street or prescription drug abuse in LT. Conceivably, alcohol use has dominated the examination of risks linked with addictive behaviors because the metabolic pathway of alcohol has direct consequences for hepatic tissue. In recent decades, the high rate of drug abuse coexisting with alcohol abuse presumably has created logistical challenges to any study that focuses on patients who exclusively abuse drugs. Nonetheless, as described earlier, substance abuse or dependence are important variables that have been implicated as predictors of relapse with alcohol after LT.33 Whether all street drug use (for example, marijuana vs. methamphetamine abuse) conveys the same degree of risk remains unclear. Nonetheless, many transplant programs require abstinence from all street drug use in chemical dependency contracts and utilize random drug screening to verify adherence. One challenging area is a patient who abuses prescription medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, and stimulants. These patients use medications at a higher dose or for an unusual indication (i.e., opioids for anxiety or sleep) that deviates from the standard of care. Reaching consensus regarding the definition of appropriate or excessive use in these cases is difficult. These patients and sometimes their prescribing physicians feel that their use of these substances is justified to treat pain, sleep, anxiety, or attention deficit disorder. No surveys to date have examined the prevalence of prescription drug abuse or dependence in LT populations. Likewise, little data exist on how best to manage problematic use of prescription medications. When evidence exists indicating a patient abuses alcohol and/or street drugs in addition to prescription agents, many LT programs stipulate that a candidate engage in chemical dependency treatment. How directly these programs confront potential prescription drug abuse depends on the documentation of the medical or psychiatric disorder warranting treatment, the option of nonhabituating alternatives, and the philosophy of the treatment program. Some programs request that patients requiring long-term uploads for pain management be converted to methadone. With increasing use of longer-acting, high-potency oral opioids in the U.S. for chronic pain, a great need exists to develop effective protocols for identifying and managing this subset of LT candidates. Best practices for patients suspected of abusing prescription medications include requiring them to obtain controlled agents from one prescriber only, to use a single pharmacy, and to agree to be followed by a psychiatrist or addiction specialist. In addition, a pain-management clinic may provide this structure and regimented control over opioid dispensing and monitoring, as well as providing nonpharmacologic treatments for pain. Methadone maintenance programs have been a primary management option in the U.S. for individuals with heroin addiction. Significant disagreement and controversy surrounds methadone-maintained (MMT) LT candidates, which is demonstrated by a recent survey showing that only 56% of U.S. LT programs would even consider such a patient for transplant evaluation.50 Even more concerning was the approach to such patients despite lack of clinical experience with MMT patients. A surprising 32% of these programs required patients to discontinue their methadone use prior to transplantation, while only 10% had experience with more than 5 such patients.50 In the general MMT population, not LT candidates, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that tapering methadone in stable methadone-maintained opioid addicts can result in relapse to illicit opiate use in up to 80% of patients.51 Requesting MMT candidates to taper off methadone during a time when they are dealing with the stresses and pain of end-stage liver disease and facing transplantation could increase their risk for relapse. If relapse occurred, they would not be eligible for transplantation. In fact, many MMT programs are highly structured, providing access to addiction counseling and requiring patients to come several times a week for methadone and perform random toxicological screening. To maintain such participation demonstrates a high degree of compliance on the MMT patients' part and can be viewed as evidence of good adherence with medical directives. In addition, outcomes in MMT LT recipients have been good. Of the approximately 180 LT recipients on MMT, relapse to use of illicit opiates was reported in <10% of patients.50 While approximately 26% of MMT patients had adherence difficulties with immunosuppressive medications,50 this rate is not different from rates of nonadherence in the general transplant population. In addition, the transplant programs did not feel the nonadherence necessarily affected outcomes, and the transplant coordinator's impressions were that only 7 of 180 patients had worse outcomes.50 One small series of MMT LT recipients at a single center (n = 5) showed overall long-term patient and graft survival comparable to other LT recipients, with none of the MMT patients evidencing posttransplant noncompliance or illicit drug use.52 In a larger cohort (n = 36) of MMT LT recipients at a single center, patient and graft survival were comparable to national averages, and only 4 patients (11%) reported isolated episodes of heroin use post-LT that were not considered to have resulted in poorer outcomes.53 MMT patients should not be denied access to liver transplantation. Those who are stable in an MMT program on adequate doses of methadone and have excellent social support combined with objective evidence of good treatment compliance should be considered for LT. However, to maintain continuity of care and continued stability of the MMT LT patient, close coordination between a member of the transplant team and treatment personnel from the patient's methadone clinic cannot be overemphasized. Despite the well-established negative health consequences of tobacco use, the consumption of tobacco products by LT patients has been surprisingly ignored until recently. A recent cross-sectional telephone survey of LT recipients at a single center (42% of potential subjects) found 15% smoking post-LT with the majority smoking <1 pack of cigarettes/day.54 A prospective study of post-LT ALD recipients found 39-58% using tobacco across time points up to three years post-LT, with 90% smoking daily.55 An additional 5% used smokeless tobacco, with the majority chewing daily. Most studies investigating the association between tobacco use and post-LT outcomes have assessed the contribution of pre-LT tobacco use to post-LT medical outcomes. For example, Pungpapong found a higher rate of vascular complications in recipients with a pre-LT history of smoking (17.8% vs. 8%, P = 0.02).56 However, they also found a significant beneficial effect of pre-LT smoking cessation, as patients who quit smoking two years prior to transplantation had a 58% reduced incidence of vascular complications.56 Jain et al. found an increased rate of late deaths (5 years and beyond) in ALD LT recipients compared with others, deaths that were primarily caused by lung and oropharyngeal cancers57 and were presumed to be associated with tobacco use. In addition, their rates of lung cancer and oropharyngeal cancers were 4 and 25 times higher, respectively, than the general nontransplanted population.57 The specific causes of increased risk are hypothesized to be due to a suppressed immune system that does not react normally to carcinogens and precancerous cells coupled with ongoing exposures to carcinogens (e.g., tobacco and possibly alcohol). In a heart transplant cohort, smokers had higher rates of vasculopathy and malignancies (mostly lung) and significantly worse survival compared with nonsmokers. When patients were grouped according to carboxy-hemoglobin levels (a biologic marker of tobacco exposure), no patient with a level higher than 2.5% (average of 11 cigarettes a day) survived after 4 years posttransplant.58 No comparable study has been performed in LT recipients. Psychiatric disorders are common in the LT population. Delirium due to hepatic encephalopathy and other factors has been reported in 56% of candidates.9 Typically best managed by optimizing the underlying medical disorder, as mentioned earlier with respect to nonadherence, delirium is significant because it may limit a patient's understanding of the transplant process. The rate of significant depressive symptoms in cirrhosis is reported to be as high as 63%.59 Singh also reported that patients with high scores on the Beck Depression Inventory, a common rating scale, were at increased risk of a poor outcome. As a result, prompt referral to psychiatry of patients with moderate to severe depressive symptoms in particular is recommended to facilitate treatment. Depressed patients typically have more physical complaints, reduced quality of life, and compromised coping. Depressive symptoms can complicate treatment of pain in particular. Although not specifically studied in the LT population, undertreated depressed patients may request dose escalation for pain relief when they actually are relying on the opioids to modify their mood or anxiety.60 The presence of a mood disorder is not a contraindication to selection as a LT candidate since effective treatment options exist (see prescription guidelines). Prompt recognition and effective intervention for depression is thought to improve outcomes. Patients who have recovered from a mood disorder are more likely to play an active role in healthcare. With treatment of depression, nonadherence that was related to helplessness or a sense of futility may improve. In most cases, anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety and panic disorder, are similar to mood disorders where prompt recognition and intervention for LT candidates is desirable. Patients with a history of suicidal ideation, plans, or attempts need intervention before the selection process can proceed. Patients who have developed acute hepatic failure as a result of drug hepatotoxicity, acetaminophen alone, or in combination with another drug, comprising 49% of cases in one series,61 need a thorough psychosocial evaluation.62 Unfortunately, the rapidly progressive nature of hepatic failure for patients who overdosed on acetaminophen often means that psychiatric assessments must be conducted emergently. In some cases, the patient may require mechanical ventilation, which compromises the opportunity for an in-depth interview. In these cases, data must be collected from all avail" @default.
W2023193852 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W2023193852 creator A5006498817 @default.
W2023193852 creator A5032351428 @default.
W2023193852 date "2005-01-01" @default.
W2023193852 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
W2023193852 title "Psychiatric and psychosocial aspects of liver transplantation" @default.
W2023193852 cites W1489608193 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1608051388 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1965096941 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1971115500 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1973835621 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1974537179 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1979925971 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1982711462 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1983577476 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1983727512 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1986237614 @default.
W2023193852 cites W1989478240 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2001045489 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2003358430 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2003695405 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2021213665 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2022530293 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2025710784 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2026630648 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2029785617 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2034909695 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2040114275 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2044247163 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2045296638 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2046885775 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2047876982 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2048366151 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2048612972 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2052777548 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2057657462 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2066015249 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2066157289 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2067772364 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2074147437 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2077236931 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2080831300 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2084532601 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2084732165 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2085125065 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2088659913 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2091419205 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2092506955 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2103976147 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2107129971 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2110108363 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2116350438 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2121951622 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2131903052 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2134595155 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2141749648 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2146712102 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2147432994 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2149602560 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2152457149 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2312609348 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2317321545 @default.
W2023193852 cites W2321062953 @default.
W2023193852 cites W32183794 @default.
W2023193852 cites W4243207962 @default.
W2023193852 cites W4251185152 @default.
W2023193852 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20578" @default.
W2023193852 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16184540" @default.
W2023193852 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
W2023193852 type Work @default.
W2023193852 sameAs 2023193852 @default.
W2023193852 citedByCount "48" @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522012 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522013 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522014 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522015 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522016 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522017 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522018 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522019 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522021 @default.
W2023193852 countsByYear W20231938522022 @default.
W2023193852 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2023193852 hasAuthorship W2023193852A5006498817 @default.
W2023193852 hasAuthorship W2023193852A5032351428 @default.
W2023193852 hasBestOaLocation W20231938521 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C150966472 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C2779609443 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C2911091166 @default.
W2023193852 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
W2023193852 hasConceptScore W2023193852C118552586 @default.
W2023193852 hasConceptScore W2023193852C126322002 @default.
W2023193852 hasConceptScore W2023193852C150966472 @default.
W2023193852 hasConceptScore W2023193852C177713679 @default.