SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897542355> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±106 with 100 items per page.

W2897542355 abstract "HomeCirculation: Heart FailureVol. 11, No. 10The American Heart Association Heart Failure Summit, Bethesda, April 12, 2017 Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplemental MaterialFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBThe American Heart Association Heart Failure Summit, Bethesda, April 12, 2017Proceedings and Calls to Action Pamela N. Peterson, MD, MSPH, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, Nancy M. Albert, PhD, Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH and on behalf of the American Heart Association Pamela N. PetersonPamela N. Peterson Pamela N. Peterson, MD, MSPH, Denver Health Medical Center, MC 0960, Denver, CO 80204. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, CO (P.N.P.). Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (P.N.P., L.A.A.). Search for more papers by this author , Larry A. AllenLarry A. Allen Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, CO (P.N.P.). Search for more papers by this author , Paul A. HeidenreichPaul A. Heidenreich Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA (P.A.H.). Veteran Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System, CA (P.A.H.). Search for more papers by this author , Nancy M. AlbertNancy M. Albert Nursing Institute and Kaufman Center for Heart Failure, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH (N.M.A.). Search for more papers by this author , Ileana L. PiñaIleana L. Piña Department of Cardiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Einstein Heart and Vascular Institute, Bronx, New York (I.L.P.). Search for more papers by this author and on behalf of the American Heart Association Search for more papers by this author Originally published12 Oct 2018https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.118.004957Circulation: Heart Failure. 2018;11:e004957AbstractThe American Heart Association convened a meeting to summarize the changing landscape of heart failure (HF), anticipate upcoming challenges and opportunities to achieve coordinated identification and treatment, and to recommend areas in need of focused efforts. The conference involved representatives from clinical care organizations, governmental agencies, researchers, patient advocacy groups, and public and private healthcare partners, demonstrating the breadth of stakeholders interested in improving care and outcomes for patients with HF. The main purposes of this meeting were to foster dialog and brainstorm actions to close gaps in identifying people with or at risk for HF and reduce HF-related morbidity, mortality, and hospitalizations. This report highlights the key topics covered during the meeting, including (1) identification of patients with or at risk for HF, (2) tracking patients once diagnosed, (3) application of population health approaches to HF, (4) improved strategies for reducing HF hospitalization (not just rehospitalization), and (5) promoting HF self-management.The American Heart Association convened diverse stakeholders and key thought leaders on April 12, 2017, to address the large health and economic burden of heart failure (HF).1 Over 30 different constituencies participated in the meeting, including patient advocacy groups, government agencies, researchers, and healthcare system representatives (see the Data Supplement for the list of attendees and organizations represented). This demonstrates the breadth of stakeholders who are interested in improving care and outcomes for patients with HF. Participants shared views and discussed ways to improve care for patients with HF, reduce hospitalizations, address disparities, and increase patient, provider, and public awareness. The summit focused on the following key topics: (1) identification of patients at risk for HF (stage B) and those with undiagnosed HF, (2) population health through tracking of patients with HF and their treatment, (3) reducing hospitalizations through optimizing the care delivery continuum, and (4) self-management. The overarching objectives of the meeting were to make HF a national priority, support the American Heart Association goal to reduce death and disability from heart disease by 20%, support the American Heart Association rise above HF goal to reduce HF hospitalization by 10%. Attendees were advised not to consider cost or limit potential interventions to those that are easily implemented. Each topic is introduced followed by priorities for action.Identification and Treatment of Patients With Stage B HFStage B HF, defined as any cardiac structural abnormality without signs or symptoms of HF, is highly prevalent.2 In the ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities), stage B HF was prevalent in 30% of the population aged 67 to 91 years.3 Multiple interventions are known to prevent progression from stage B to stage C HF. However, because of the absence of signs or symptoms, stage B HF is often unrecognized and untreated.In practice, our ability to identify stage B HF is limited. Studies have found that screening for asymptomatic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction using echocardiography is not cost-effective.4,5 Current guidelines provide a Class IIa recommendation for natriuretic peptide biomarker–based screening followed by team-based care and optimization of guideline directed medical therapy for patients at high risk of developing HF.2,6,7 Studies have shown that with brain natriuretic peptide screening of high-risk populations, asymptomatic LV dysfunction can be as high as 15% to 20%. Screening with Life’s Simple 7 has shown some promise for predicting incident HF.8 Future research is needed to identify cost-effective screening strategies that can easily be implemented to identify these patients.Patients with stage B HF are generally cared for in the primary care setting, so educational efforts must focus on primary care providers to improve recognition and treatment of stage B HF. Once structural abnormalities are recognized, medications should be optimized and team-based care implemented. It was widely recognized by conference attendees that it is not possible for all stage B patients to be referred to cardiologists. Thus, there is a need to provide knowledge, support, and resources to primary care doctors. This may be done through direct education or perhaps even a HF certification. Suggested action items are listed in Table 1.Table 1. Identification and Treatment of Patients with Stage B HF1Better define cost-effective screening strategies that can easily be implemented to identify stage B HF among high-risk patients.2Develop programs for front-line/primary care providers to increase awareness of stage B HF and provide education about risk factors, screening, and treatment options.3Define algorithms to detect early stage B HF that are overall cost-effective.4Develop closer relationships between the AHA and primary care societies, such as the American Association of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians.5Create an HF certification program to help front-line/primary care providers become facile with the recognition and treatment of early-stage HF.AHA indicates American Heart Association; and HF, heart failure.Identification of HF Symptoms (Stage C)Many patients categorized as stage B—structural abnormalities with no symptoms—do in fact have unrecognized symptoms. In some cases, symptoms may be incorrectly attributed to other issues, such as pulmonary or gastrointestinal disease, particularly in younger populations for whom HF is not as prevalent.9,10 Delayed diagnosis can also happen because patients alter their activity or stop doing things that trigger symptoms. Particularly among older patients, symptoms may be considered normal aging. Asking the right questions is helpful in discovering symptoms in disguise, for example, asking patients to compare their activity and performance 5 years ago with the present; what differences do they see? Eliciting symptoms when present is important because it provides additional targets for treatment to help avoid hospitalizations and can provide greater motivation on the part of patients to follow recommendations.Summit participants discussed the terminology used to label individuals with a spectrum of structural abnormalities and clinical signs and symptoms—HF. This term may be frightening for patients and connotes a sense of hopelessness or failure. In some cases, the patient may perceive this as a failure on their part. This is important to consider, as positive reinforcement and positive approaches encourage people to engage in desired behaviors.Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction are often not identified as such because they are admitted with other comorbidities, such as hypertension or diabetes mellitus.11–13 Admissions can easily be ascribed to the comorbidities while the HF with preserved ejection fraction diagnosis remains elusive. The reasons for volume overload can be varied and difficult to identify. For example, atrial fibrillation can present as simply an arrhythmia or may be masking HF with preserved ejection fraction. While focusing on treatment and control of atrial fibrillation, providers may overlook HF with preserved ejection fraction. Addressing underlying risk factors, managing volume status, and patient education are critical for this group of patients who are often older, complex, and challenging to manage. Suggested action items are listed in Table 2.Table 2. Identification of HF Symptoms (Stage C)1Create, test, and validate a questionnaire or survey instrument to screen for HF that could be widely implemented. Questions should differentiate HF from normal aging, with a focus on HF in disguise so that patients are prompted to seek medical care and clinicians are prompted to evaluate and test for HF.2Encourage a lower threshold for ruling out HF, particularly as tied to pretest probabilities.3Launch local and national public health campaigns to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of HF and encourage people to talk to their healthcare provider. This may help identify patients who may not otherwise come to the attention of the healthcare system.4Put a human face on what HF looks like by having patients tell their stories of living with HF.5Avoid indiscriminate use of the term failure, with consideration for renaming the syndrome of HF in terminology that optimally motivates positive health behaviors.6Educate providers about HFpEF, including (a) it is common, (b) outcomes are poor, (c) it is highly prevalent among specific demographic groups, and (d) it is responsive to good preventive care and careful fluid management.HF indicates heart failure; and HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Population Health: Systems to Identify and Track Patients With HF to Optimize and Target TherapiesPopulation health targets all patients in a health system with a given condition to facilitate care outside of the patient-provider interaction. Population health should be applied to all stages of HF and should be viewed as complementary to traditional patient-provider encounters.14–16 To provide population health care, the health system needs to link electronic data and develop algorithms for identification of patients with HF. For example, patients may be targeted for outreach if they are found to be nonadherent to appointments or medications or have a rapidly progressive course, as identified by frequent utilization. Safety monitoring of medications (eg, for hyperkalemia or renal insufficiency) is another area well suited to population health. Providers may be the outreach focus if care does not seem to be consistent with current guidelines or if referral to a higher level of care should be considered (eg, HF specialist).Participants discussed the importance of using system level identification and tracking of patients with HF through the course of their disease. Participants agreed that tracking all 4 stages of HF—A through D—would facilitate optimal treatment. Stages A and B have a longer time horizon and greater opportunity to intervene to prevent progression. Stages C and D are more focused on active treatment, symptom reduction, and avoidance of hospitalization. Automated identification of patients with HF in real time in conjunction with treatment pathways will assist in patient care, targeting of therapies, and measuring quality of care.17–19The poor availability of the LV ejection fraction in the electronic health record was identified as a critical system issue given that LV ejection fraction is central to guiding many HF care options. Beyond LV ejection fraction, care options are often related to where patients are in the course of their disease. Anticipating the clinical course is critical, particularly as a patient approaches end-stage disease, when major treatment options may be available for some and others should begin to prepare for the final stage of life. However, patients are often referred too late for advanced therapies, including mechanical assistance and transplant. Improved tracking and recognition of patients who are progressing from stage C to D is needed to implement advanced therapies before patients are too sick to consider them. Multiple risk models have been developed that quantitatively recognize key clinical data associated with near-term death.20–22 Fortunately, these data elements (eg, hypotension, renal dysfunction, and elevated natriuretic peptides) are reasonably parsimonious, well understood, and adequately predict risk across all populations. Yet, these data tend to be haphazardly applied or unappreciated in routine care.23–25Attendees of the HF summit discussed the financial issues with population health. It was recognized that in the current fee-for-service environment, there is limited funding for population health. However, population health may improve performance on quality metrics and may be valued by administrators to the extent that such metrics are used for reimbursement or accreditation. A switch to risk sharing or full capitation will increase the value of population health if such care can keep patients out of the hospital. If the fee-for-service model persists, then a separate service (current procedural terminology) code for population health interventions would be important to provide funding for these efforts. Regardless of the revenue model, the benefits of population health will need to be presented in ways that appeal to health system administrators. Implementation will ultimately depend on providers and patients understanding and supporting population health efforts to improve HF care. Suggested action items are listed in Table 3.Table 3. Optimize and Target Therapies1Data systems need to link clinical, pharmacy, and encounter data, and data science needs to be applied to develop algorithms that can be applied to care in real time that identify patients for whom there are opportunities to intervene to improve care and outcomes, including health status.2A set of clearly outlined treatment pathways (at an institutional level) should encourage providers and patients to think about high-value activities throughout encounters. The information should include consideration of diagnostic procedures, medical therapies, device therapies, and lifestyle changes.3Imaging software and electronic health records must require field coding of summary LVEF measurement (just as a systolic blood pressure or serum creatinine is recorded), which can then be used to identify certain patients and trigger appropriate care.4Apply data science to develop risk models that can be automatically calculated and presented in electronic health records that in turn foster clear communication about prognosis and care considerations.5Launch a targeted campaign aimed to educate providers who care for patients with HF, including cardiologists, primary care doctors, and hospitalists about signs of progressing from stage C to D.6Data science should be applied to develop algorithms that can be incorporated into EHRs to facilitate identification of patients with a worsening trajectory who should be referred to an HF specialist for consideration of advanced therapies.7Within networks of care, create different levels of expertise and coordination so that patients receive the appropriate level of care.EHR indicates electronic health record; HF, heart failure; and LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction.Reducing HF Hospitalizations and Optimizing the Care ContinuumHospitalizations are key points in the trajectory of disease, representing worsening disease. Hospitalizations are also costly and can adversely affect quality of life.26–29 Reflecting this, HF hospitalizations have been the focus of several pay-for-performance initiatives, with the aim of increasing quality of care and reducing costs. Although important for future care, these approaches (eg, focus on reducing 30-day readmissions) tend to lack a holistic, longitudinal approach to HF care. Conference attendees discussed a more longitudinal approach to care delivery that focuses on health status and functional outcomes in the context of patient preferences. They identified core components of existing processes of care, how those could be optimized, and also considered novel ways to deliver care to patients with HF.Participants also emphasized that care delivery must take into consideration the individual. Specifically, differences in age, sex, race, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication tolerance. Individual patients have many different needs, attitudes, beliefs, literacy levels, socioeconomic issues, coping skills, financial constraints, family influences, and personal preferences. Summit attendees discussed how existing core components of care and novel strategies of care delivery could be successfully delivered in the context of these issues, constraints, and preferences.Optimization of Core Components of Current Processes of CareMedication reconciliation: medication reconciliation is expected before discharge from the hospital and at each outpatient visit. This is an important process that provides an opportunity to address polypharmacy, assess patient understanding of how to take medications, provide patient education, and encourage medication adherence. Medication reconciliation is also critical for optimizing guideline directed medical therapy. However, time pressures on physicians limit thorough and effective medication reconciliation. Conference attendees identified the need to engage more people who have adequate knowledge to perform medication reconciliation and provide patient education around medications. This could include pharmacists, medical assistants, and advanced practice providers.Timely postdischarge visit: participants agreed that this is a critical visit. Patients are particularly vulnerable in the early period after discharge from the hospital. Medications and care plans can become confusing in the transition of care and particularly with multiple providers. Follow-up within 7 days should be scheduled to assess clinical status, perform relevant laboratory tests to assess medication safety and clinical status, review medications and uptitrate doses as appropriate, review activity recommendations, discuss any additional tests or medications that might be appropriate, and reinforce self-care.30Subsequent follow-up visits: participants discussed the importance of follow-up visits to optimize treatment, which often cannot be achieved during hospitalization. Getting the right patient on the right drug at the right dose should be the goal, while considering comorbidities, patient’s goals of care, their family, and their finances. Additional core components for good follow-up for HF include patient education, medication reconciliation, and symptom assessment and management.Multidisciplinary clinic teams: multidisciplinary teams are not uncommon in the hospital but are not universal in the outpatient setting. Clinics should consistently have access to multidisciplinary professionals, including pharmacists, nutritionists, social workers, case managers, substance abuse counselors, palliative care specialists, chaplains, and behavioral health providers, such as psychologists and psychiatrists.31–34Population health management: although a core component of care in some systems, population health management is not universally applied to HF. It is important to move toward population health management.Novel Ways to Deliver CareNonmedical care providers: increase use of layperson navigators. Train people from the community.Virtual visits: redesigning the system to include telemedicine and virtual visits as part of the overall standard of care.Use mobile health self-monitoring tools: use Skype, cell phone applications, or telecare methods to communicate with patients who use self-monitoring tools. This model would require innovation for teambuilding and reimbursements for telecare, email, and app use.Better use of electronic health records for information sharing: better communication among providers, patients, hospitals, and health systems would enable everyone to share the medical history and status of the patient. Medical records should be readily available, and providers are enabled to directly and effectively communicate across systems and with the entire healthcare team.Medication reconciliation processes: an improved system that includes better communication and engagement with pharmacies is needed.Patient and caretaker engagement: clinicians need to routinely engage and partner with patients and their families to achieve and maintain maximum tolerated guideline-recommended medical therapy.More support for primary providers: conference participants recognized that not all patients with HF can or will receive cardiology or HF specialty care. Thus, primary care providers need more support to manage HF in the context of all other medical issues.Incentivize patients to take responsibility for self-management: getting patients to participate in self-management is a significant challenge. Self-management is critical to keeping patients out of the hospital. Insurance companies could reduce patient copayments for achieving desirable goal-oriented health outcomes.New payment models: payment models need to address telehealth, including video conferencing, care coordination, and population-level prevention.Suggested action items are listed in Table 4.Table 4. Reducing Heart Failure Hospitalizations and Optimizing the Care Continuum1Train and incorporate layperson navigators into care processes.2Enable all healthcare providers to practice at the top of their license, including nurses, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants and utilize their expertise for processes such as medication reconciliation, patient education, patient engagement, and virtual visits.3Develop and test strategies to increase patient and caretaker engagement.4Define and test distance-health methodologies, such as virtual visits. Realign provision of care and the payments for care to allow for more flexible effective care models that utilize remote monitoring technology.5Develop population health interventions, such as system alerts for missed prescription refills. Systems with the capability to notify pharmacists, patients, or providers about missed prescription refills create an opportunity to engage patients in a conversation about what barriers they might be facing.6Develop and test strategies to incentivize patients to take responsibility for self-management.Self-ManagementHF self-care is a complex process because it requires an understanding of 3 concepts: (1) the self-care behaviors of daily living and how to carry them out, (2) how to monitor and recognize new or worsening signs and symptoms of HF, and (3) what actions to take to relieve or minimize symptoms (self-management).34,35 As a strategy to improve HF outcomes, self-care behaviors and self-care management are often not adequately used by patients and caregivers.36–38Patients must be engaged consumers of self-care who take action and, importantly, stay on course under stress. Although there are many models of enhancing self-care, 2 models of interest were patient activation and shared decision-making. Higher patient activation leads to improved clinical outcomes.39,40 Shared decision-making provides a reminder that patients are in control of their health, not providers. It is important to think about HF in the context of patients’ daily lives (and their goals), rather than as a medical condition with one path of treatment and without life context. Patients are independent providers of self-care the majority of time.Participants acknowledged the importance of recognizing physical, transportation, and financial limitations of patients. Further, developing cultural competence is critical to teaching self-care so that treatment recommendations can be more consistent with a patient’s cultural beliefs and values. Patient education should begin in the hospital, should be in consumable formats, such as videos, podcasts, or booklets that are acceptable to patients in language, format, and readability. Patients can feel overwhelmed with too much information about their diagnoses, treatments, medications, provider recommendations, and lifestyle changes. Focusing on 1 or 2 aspects of treatment or medications for the first few months and then building on those in later visits can be less stressful on the patient. Summit attendees identified the following strategies to improve patient engagement:Clarify and take into account patient goals: recognize what patients want to do, whether or not they want help, and if they have competencies for tasks.Empower patients: empowerment related to treatment changes may increase engagement and enhance control in the treatment regimen.Self-management tools: provide guides or tools that are culturally competent and appropriate for the patient’s health literacy level to enable patients to perform self-monitoring, self-maintenance, and self-management.Tie adherence to positive feelings: positive reinforcement that associates actions with positive consequences may improve patient engagement and adherence. Language such as “If you do this, you will feel better,” works better than tying a missed action to a negative consequence, such as “This action might result in hospitalization.”Recognize patient barriers and tailor self-care plans accordingly: recognize barriers that patients face in their communities and life circumstances. For example, finding healthy places to eat or exercise be difficult or impossible in some cities or locations.Ask patients about affordability: affordability may affect many aspects of self-management, including food choices, medication adherence, and adherence to appointments.Patient-to-patient teaching: encourage patient-to-patient teaching. Sometimes hearing the story of someone who has experienced HF is powerful and inspirational.Finally, participants expressed a vision for home visits to facilitate self-care. Strategies for self-care (such as medication data sheets that include a picture of the medicine, the brand name, the generic name, and a time schedule of when daily medications should be taken) are generally given to patients in the clinic setting. However, on a home visit, providers can better assist with reviewing foods in cupboards and setting out a strategy to increase adherence to medications. Further, it is important to engage family and caregivers and teach them about HF self-care. Suggested action items are listed in Table 5.Table 5. Self-Management1Develop a program to certify HF educators that provides techniques for engagement and education, such as motivational interviewing and teach back.2Shared (group) medical appointments can be useful and may increase interactions and depth of discussion.3Consider incorporating home visits: visiting patients in their home can give a more accurate perspective on home circumstances and lifestyle.4Virtual visits for home care: virtual (distance health) visits may increase patient engagement in care and ease the burden of seeking healthcare provider support, especially for the elderly and other vulnerable or frail adults. Virtual visits need to be included in our reimbursement model; CPT and E&M code need to be defined to incentivize virtual visits.5Create technology platforms for patient groups and discussions: technology platforms, such as email, apps, and websites, could enable patients to ask questions, discuss issues, and form support groups. Use social media to invite people into support groups. The group might include clinicians or other providers but meets outside of the typical clinical visit.CPT indicates current procedural terminology; E&M, evaluation and management; and HF, heart failure.Limitations and GapsWe recognize that with limited time, important topics were not specifically addressed or were only partially addressed and hence the need for further discussion and research in these areas. Prevention of HF is one important topic that was not discussed at all at the summit because of limited time. New data are constantly emerging. For example, recent findings that the use of new agents in diabetes mellitus reduces the development of HF. These agents may have an important role in preventing HF in the future. Additionally, important outcomes, such as mortality and health status, were not specific topics for discussion but were considered in each of the discussions around identification of patients with or at risk for HF, tracking patients once diagnosed, application of population health approaches to HF, strategies for reducing hospitalization, and promotin" @default.
W2897542355 created "2018-10-26" @default.
W2897542355 creator A5029257839 @default.
W2897542355 creator A5043416120 @default.
W2897542355 creator A5075249427 @default.
W2897542355 creator A5085857819 @default.
W2897542355 creator A5087791202 @default.
W2897542355 date "2018-10-01" @default.
W2897542355 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
W2897542355 title "The American Heart Association Heart Failure Summit, Bethesda, April 12, 2017" @default.
W2897542355 cites W1615449000 @default.
W2897542355 cites W1966733650 @default.
W2897542355 cites W1978575887 @default.
W2897542355 cites W1978616702 @default.
W2897542355 cites W1980002683 @default.
W2897542355 cites W1992563139 @default.
W2897542355 cites W1998722964 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2018256620 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2020951698 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2025281033 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2060127175 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2061909225 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2065398947 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2070628531 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2086962440 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2092254223 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2112673424 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2113761181 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2118609289 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2121932690 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2126617656 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2127712541 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2129634336 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2136272299 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2162069712 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2178738676 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2236642986 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2251051718 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2313960840 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2320636030 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2331169554 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2333391770 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2337110489 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2554655675 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2564505779 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2588872891 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2601031783 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2617926768 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2624368329 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2733756507 @default.
W2897542355 cites W2783764301 @default.
W2897542355 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/circheartfailure.118.004957" @default.
W2897542355 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6211812" @default.
W2897542355 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30354400" @default.
W2897542355 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
W2897542355 type Work @default.
W2897542355 sameAs 2897542355 @default.
W2897542355 citedByCount "9" @default.
W2897542355 countsByYear W28975423552017 @default.
W2897542355 countsByYear W28975423552019 @default.
W2897542355 countsByYear W28975423552020 @default.
W2897542355 countsByYear W28975423552021 @default.
W2897542355 countsByYear W28975423552022 @default.
W2897542355 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2897542355 hasAuthorship W2897542355A5029257839 @default.
W2897542355 hasAuthorship W2897542355A5043416120 @default.
W2897542355 hasAuthorship W2897542355A5075249427 @default.
W2897542355 hasAuthorship W2897542355A5085857819 @default.
W2897542355 hasAuthorship W2897542355A5087791202 @default.
W2897542355 hasBestOaLocation W28975423551 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C2778198053 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C2778848561 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C58640448 @default.
W2897542355 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C126322002 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C164705383 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C205649164 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C2778198053 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C2778848561 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C58640448 @default.
W2897542355 hasConceptScore W2897542355C71924100 @default.
W2897542355 hasIssue "10" @default.
W2897542355 hasLocation W28975423551 @default.
W2897542355 hasLocation W28975423552 @default.
W2897542355 hasLocation W28975423553 @default.
W2897542355 hasLocation W28975423554 @default.
W2897542355 hasOpenAccess W2897542355 @default.
W2897542355 hasPrimaryLocation W28975423551 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W1491055865 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2012241433 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2039995053 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2051712573 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2076843464 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2077083067 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2314128040 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W2965474825 @default.
W2897542355 hasRelatedWork W4247718175 @default.