15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined evidence about the use of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review last published in 2011. To examine the effects of acupuncture and acupressure for pain management in labour. For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, (25 February 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2019), CINAHL (1980 to February 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platfory ( ICTRP ) (February 2019) and reference lists of included studies. Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture or acupressure with placebo, no treatment or other non‐pharmacological forms of pain management in labour. We included all women whether nulliparous or multiparous, and in spontaneous or induced labour. We included studies reported in abstract form if there was sufficient information to permit assessment of risk of bias. Trials using a cluster‐RCT design were eligible for inclusion, but quasi‐RCTs or cross‐over studies were not. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 28 trials with data reporting on 3960 women. Thirteen trials reported on acupuncture and 15 trials reported on acupressure. No study was at a low risk of bias on all domains. Pain intensity was generally measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 or 0 to 100 with low scores indicating less pain. Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture Acupuncture may make little or no difference to the intensity of pain felt by women when compared with sham acupuncture (mean difference (MD) ‐4.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐12.94 to 4.09, 2 trials, 325 women, low‐certainty evidence). Acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain relief compared to sham acupuncture (risk ratio (RR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.19, 1 trial, 150 women, moderate‐certainty evidence), and probably reduces the use of pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89, 2 trials, 261 women, moderate‐certainty evidence). Acupuncture may have no effect on assisted vaginal birth (very low‐certainty evidence), and probably little to no effect on caesarean section (low‐certainty evidence). Acupuncture compared to usual care We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces pain intensity compared to usual care because the evidence was found to be very low certainty (standardised mean difference (SMD) ‐1.31, 95% CI ‐2.14 to ‐0.49, 4 trials, 495 women, I 2 = 93%). Acupuncture may have little to no effect on satisfaction with pain relief (low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces the use of pharmacological analgesia because the evidence was found to be very low certainty (average RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85, 6 trials, 1059 women, I 2 = 70%). Acupuncture probably has little to no effect on assisted vaginal birth (low‐certainty evidence) or caesarean section (low‐certainty evidence). Acupuncture compared to no treatment One trial compared acupuncture to no treatment. We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces pain intensity (MD ‐1.16, 95% CI ‐1.51 to ‐0.81, 163 women, very low‐certainty evidence), assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupuncture compared to sterile water injection We are uncertain if acupuncture has any effect on use of pharmacological analgesia, assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure compared to a sham control We are uncertain if acupressure reduces pain intensity in labour (MD ‐1.93, 95% CI ‐3.31 to ‐0.55, 6 trials, 472 women) or assisted vaginal birth because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure may have little to no effect on use of pharmacological analgesia (low‐certainty evidence). Acupressure probably reduces the caesarean section rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71, 4 trials, 313 women, moderate‐certainty evidence). Acupressure compared to usual care We are uncertain if acupressure reduces pain intensity in labour (SMD ‐1.07, 95% CI ‐1.45 to ‐0.69, 8 trials, 620 women) or increases satisfaction with pain relief (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35, 1 trial, 105 women) because the evidence was found to be very low certainty. Acupressure may have little to no effect on caesarean section (low‐certainty evidence). Acupressure compared to a combined control Acupressure probably slightly reduces the intensity of pain during labour compared with the combined control (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (SMD ‐0.42, 95% CI ‐0.65 to ‐0.18, 2 trials, 322 women, moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain if acupressure has any effect on the use of pharmacological analgesia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 212 women), satisfaction with childbirth, assisted vaginal birth or caesarean section because the certainty of the evidence was all very low. No studies were found that reported on sense of control in labour and only one reported on satisfaction with the childbirth experience. Acupuncture in comparison to sham acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain management and reduce use of pharmacological analgesia. Acupressure in comparison to a combined control and usual care may reduce pain intensity. However, for other comparisons of acupuncture and acupressure, we are uncertain about the effects on pain intensity and satisfaction with pain relief due to very low‐certainty evidence. Acupuncture may have little to no effect on the rates of caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Acupressure probably reduces the need for caesarean section in comparison to a sham control. There is a need for further high‐quality research that include sham controls and comparisons to usual care and report on the outcomes of sense of control in labour, satisfaction with the childbirth experience or satisfaction with pain relief. Acupuncture or acupressure for relieving pain during labour We examined the evidence from randomised controlled trials on the use of acupuncture or acupressure in helping women to manage pain during labour. This is an update of a review last published in 2011. What is the issue? The pain women experience during labour can be intense, with body tension, anxiety and fear making it worse. Pain is caused by contractions of the uterus, the opening of the cervix and, in the late first and second stages, by stretching of the vagina and pelvic floor as the baby moves down the birth canal. Effective, satisfactory pain management needs to be individualised for each woman. Women may also use strategies to try to break the fear‐tension‐pain cycle and work with the pain. Working with the pain involves offering women support and encouragement, finding comfortable positions, immersion in water and self‐help techniques. Many women would like to go through labour without using drugs. Women may turn to acupuncture or acupressure to help reduce their pain and improve management of the pain. Why is this important? Acupuncture has a long history of use in Asia, including China, Korea and Japan. Technical needling skills are needed to apply the needles at the correct points. Acupressure also has its origins in early China. To apply acupressure, the therapist uses their hands and fingers to activate the same points as in acupuncture. Sometimes only a few points are needed to alleviate pain or bring about a feeling of relaxation. Other times a combination of points may be required for greater effect. Some forms of acupressure are applied by trained health professionals, while others can be applied by the individual as a form of self‐massage. What evidence did we find? Our updated search in February 2019 identified 17 new trials. This review now includes 28 trials reporting on 3960 women, with 27 trials contributing results. The trials compared acupuncture or acupressure with sham treatment as placebo, no treatment or usual care for pain management during labour. Thirteen trials reported on acupuncture and 15 trials reported on acupressure. For 18 of the 27 trials women were in spontaneous labour. In other studies labour may have been induced. Eight studies applied individualised traditional Chinese medicine while set acupuncture points were used in the majority of studies. We noted wide variation in how stimulation was applied (manually or with electro‐stimulation), duration of needling, number of points used, and depth of needling. It is unclear how representative the trial treatments were of acupuncture in practice. Most comparisons suggest a small beneficial effect from acupuncture, though the supporting evidence was limited. We are uncertain if acupuncture reduces the intensity of pain when compared with sham acupuncture (2 trials, 325 women), usual care (4 trials, 495 women) and no treatment (1 trial, 163 women). The certainty of the evidence was low or very low. Acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain relief compared to sham acupuncture (one trial, moderate‐certainty evidence). It slightly reduced the use of pharmacological analgesia compared to sham acupuncture (2 trials, 261 women, moderate‐certainty evidence). Use of acupressure was associated with a reduction in pain intensity in labour when compared to a combined control (2 trials, 322 women, moderate‐certainty evidence). Acupuncture did not appear to have any effect on the need for assisted vaginal births or caesarean births, but acupressure reduced the rate of caesarean section when compared to sham acupressure. What does this mean? Acupuncture may increase satisfaction with pain relief and reduce use of pharmacological pain relief. Acupressure may help relieve pain during labour, although the pain reduction may not be large. However, for other comparisons of acupuncture and acupressure, we are uncertain about the effects on pain intensity and satisfaction with pain relief due to very low‐certainty evidence. Acupuncture or acupressure may have little to no effect on assisted vaginal birth, but women having acupressure maybe less likely to need a caesarean section. Studies were conducted in different countries, which may reflect the different styles of applying acupuncture. A weakness of a number of trials continues to be that very few outcomes were measured and no safety outcomes were reported. More high‐quality research is needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.

          The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour). To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews. We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea.  Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Inserting needles into the body: a meta-analysis of brain activity associated with acupuncture needle stimulation.

            Acupuncture is a therapeutic treatment that is defined as the insertion of needles into the body at specific points (ie, acupoints). Advances in functional neuroimaging have made it possible to study brain responses to acupuncture; however, previous studies have mainly concentrated on acupoint specificity. We wanted to focus on the functional brain responses that occur because of needle insertion into the body. An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis was carried out to investigate common characteristics of brain responses to acupuncture needle stimulation compared to tactile stimulation. A total of 28 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, which consisted of 51 acupuncture and 10 tactile stimulation experiments, were selected for the meta-analysis. Following acupuncture needle stimulation, activation in the sensorimotor cortical network, including the insula, thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex, and primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, and deactivation in the limbic-paralimbic neocortical network, including the medial prefrontal cortex, caudate, amygdala, posterior cingulate cortex, and parahippocampus, were detected and assessed. Following control tactile stimulation, weaker patterns of brain responses were detected in areas similar to those stated above. The activation and deactivation patterns following acupuncture stimulation suggest that the hemodynamic responses in the brain simultaneously reflect the sensory, cognitive, and affective dimensions of pain. This article facilitates a better understanding of acupuncture needle stimulation and its effects on specific activity changes in different brain regions as well as its relationship to the multiple dimensions of pain. Future studies can build on this meta-analysis and will help to elucidate the clinically relevant therapeutic effects of acupuncture. Copyright © 2013 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

              Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined the evidence currently available on manual methods, including massage and reflexology, for pain management in labour. This review is an update of the review first published in 2012. To assess the effect, safety and acceptability of massage, reflexology and other manual methods to manage pain in labour. For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 June 2017, CINAHL (1980 to 30 June 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (4 August 2017), Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (4 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov , (4 August 2017), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (4 August 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( ICTRP ) (4 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials. We included randomised controlled trials comparing manual methods with standard care, other non‐pharmacological forms of pain management in labour, no treatment or placebo. We searched for trials of the following modalities: massage, warm packs, thermal manual methods, reflexology, chiropractic, osteopathy, musculo‐skeletal manipulation, deep tissue massage, neuro‐muscular therapy, shiatsu, tuina, trigger point therapy, myotherapy and zero balancing. We excluded trials for pain management relating to hypnosis, aromatherapy, acupuncture and acupressure; these are included in other Cochrane reviews. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and checked data for accuracy. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included a total of 14 trials; 10 of these (1055 women) contributed data to meta‐analysis. Four trials, involving 274 women, met our inclusion criteria but did not contribute data to the review. Over half the trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of trials had a high risk of performance bias and detection bias, and an unclear risk of reporting bias. We found no trials examining the effectiveness of reflexology. Massage We found low‐quality evidence that massage provided a greater reduction in pain intensity (measured using self‐reported pain scales) than usual care during the first stage of labour (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.06 to −0.56, six trials, 362 women). Two trials reported on pain intensity during the second and third stages of labour, and there was evidence of a reduction in pain scores in favour of massage (SMD −0.98, 95% CI −2.23 to 0.26, 124 women; and SMD −1.03, 95% CI −2.17 to 0.11, 122 women). There was very low‐quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage over usual care for the length of labour (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 20.64, 95% CI −58.24 to 99.52, six trials, 514 women), and pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.74, four trials, 105 women). There was very low‐quality evidence showing no clear benefit of massage for assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.13, four trials, 368 women) and caesarean section (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.09, six trials, 514 women). One trial reported less anxiety during the first stage of labour for women receiving massage (MD ‐16.27, 95% CI −27.03 to −5.51, 60 women). One trial found an increased sense of control from massage (MD 14.05, 95% CI 3.77 to 24.33, 124 women, low‐quality evidence). Two trials examining satisfaction with the childbirth experience reported data on different scales; both found more satisfaction with massage, although the evidence was low quality in one study and very low in the other. Warm packs We found very low‐quality evidence for reduced pain (Visual Analogue Scale/VAS) in the first stage of labour (SMD −0.59, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.00, three trials, 191 women), and the second stage of labour (SMD −1.49, 95% CI −2.85 to −0.13, two trials, 128 women). Very low‐quality evidence showed reduced length of labour (minutes) in the warm‐pack group (MD −66.15, 95% CI −91.83 to −40.47; two trials; 128 women). Thermal manual methods One trial evaluated thermal manual methods versus usual care and found very low‐quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during the first phase of labour for women receiving thermal methods (MD −1.44, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.65, one trial, 96 women). There was a reduction in the length of labour (minutes) (MD −78.24, 95% CI −118.75 to −37.73, one trial, 96 women, very low‐quality evidence). There was no clear difference for assisted vaginal birth (very low‐quality evidence). Results were similar for cold packs versus usual care, and intermittent hot and cold packs versus usual care, for pain intensity, length of labour and assisted vaginal birth. Music One trial that compared manual methods with music found very low‐quality evidence of reduced pain intensity during labour in the massage group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89, 101 women). There was no evidence of benefit for reduced use of pharmacological pain relief (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.08, very low‐quality evidence). Of the seven outcomes we assessed using GRADE, only pain intensity was reported in all comparisons. Satisfaction with the childbirth experience, sense of control, and caesarean section were rarely reported in any of the comparisons. Massage, warm pack and thermal manual methods may have a role in reducing pain, reducing length of labour and improving women's sense of control and emotional experience of labour, although the quality of evidence varies from low to very low and few trials reported on the key GRADE outcomes. Few trials reported on safety as an outcome. There is a need for further research to address these outcomes and to examine the effectiveness and efficacy of these manual methods for pain management. Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for managing pain in labour What is the issue? This Cochrane review looked at whether massage, reflexology and other manual therapies would help with reducing pain and improve women's experiences of childbirth. We collected and analysed all the relevant trials to answer this question (search date: 30 June 2017). Why is this important? The pain of labour can be intense, with tension, anxiety and fear making it worse. Many women would like to labour without using drugs such as narcotics or epidurals, and are interested in complementary therapies to help them manage the pain of labour. In this review we have looked to see if massage, reflexology and other manual methods are effective. Other complementary therapies like acupuncture, mind‐body techniques, hypnosis and aromatherapy have been studied in other Cochrane reviews. Massage involves manipulating the body's soft tissues and it can be done by the midwife or partner. It helps women relax and so reduces tension which in turn may reduce pain in labour. Reflexology is gentle manipulation or pressing on certain parts of the foot to produce an effect elsewhere in the body. Other manual methods include warm packs, osteopathy, shiatsu and zero balancing. It is important to examine if these therapies work and are safe, to enable women to make informed decisions about their care. What evidence did we find? This updated review now includes 14 trials. We were able to use data from 10 of the trials, involving a total of 1055 women. We found no trials on reflexology, osteopathy, shiatsu and zero balancing therapy. In the various included trials, massage was given either by the woman's birth companion, a student midwife, a physiotherapist or a massage therapist (though some trials did not report who gave the massage). Three trials involved a two‐ to three‐hour prebirth course attended by women and their partners, and delivered by a qualified practitioner. In three trials, the intervention was delivered by a qualified health practitioner (massage therapist, physiotherapist or nurse/researcher with unspecified qualifications). In one trial, nurses taught women's partners in the labour ward. There was insufficient reporting of the qualifications of the practitioner teaching massage. We found that massage and thermal packs, in comparison to usual care or music, may help women manage labour pain intensity during the first stage when the cervix is dilating. However, the quality of this evidence was very low. The effects of massage on assisted vaginal birth, caesarean section rate, the length of labour and use of drugs for pain relief were less clear, and the quality of the evidence was also very low. Two small trials showed increased satisfaction with childbirth, and a greater sense of control for women receiving massage. Warm packs were associated with reduced pain in the first stage of labour and reduced length of labour (very low‐quality evidence). What does this mean? Massage may help women cope with pain in labour and may give them a better birth experience, and warm packs and thermal methods may help with pain. However, the quality of the evidence was generally low or very low, partly due to the trials being small and without sufficient numbers of women participating. These findings highlight a need for further research on this topic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                146518
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                February 07 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Western Sydney University; NICM Health Research Institute; Locked Bag 1797 Penrith New South Wales Australia 2751
                [2 ]South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute; Women and Kids; 72 King William Road Adelaide South Australia Australia 5006
                [3 ]University of Notre Dame; School of Medicine; Sydney Australia
                [4 ]Western Sydney University; School of Nursing and Midwifery; Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW Australia 2751
                [5 ]National University Hospital; Department of Preventive Medicine; Singapore Singapore
                [6 ]National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD); Cochrane Iran Associate Centre; Tehran Iran
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD009232.pub2
                7007200
                32032444
                ed2c4ff2-9331-475e-9c8d-b4328f6a4bfd
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article