scholarly journals Cell-based therapies for COVID-19: A living systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Javiera Corbalán ◽  
Patricio Rojas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Open Platform ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number

ABSTRACT Objective This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Data sources We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L-OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L-OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L-OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until April 23, 2020 (one day before submission). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for randomised trials evaluating the effect of cell-based therapies versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Anticipating the lack of randomised trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results We screened 1,043 records but no study was considered eligible. We identified 61 ongoing studies, including 39 randomised trials evaluating different types of cell-based therapies in COVID-19. Conclusions We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision makers in the near future. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020179711 Box 1 Linked resources in this Living Systematic Review Common protocol Common protocol for the systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews being conducted by the COVID-19 L·OVE Working Group. Available here Living review Web version of this systematic review, presented in a ‘living systematic review format’. This means it is continuously updated as soon as new evidence emerges. Available here Living OVerview of Evidence - L·OVE An open platform that uses artificial intelligence and a broad network of contributors to identify all of the evidence relevant to this and other healthcare questions, including those related to COVID-19. Available here

scholarly journals Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir— as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Vitamin C for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduard Baladia ◽  
Ana Beatriz Pizarro ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin C ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of vitamin C, as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating vitamin C in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽  
María Ximena Rojas Reyes ◽  
Juan Víctor Ariel Franco ◽  
María Paz Acuña ◽  
Luz Ángela Torres López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the relative impact of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on outcomes important to patients with COVID 19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

scholarly journals Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Natalia Carvajal-Juliá ◽  
Nicolás Meza ◽  
Eva Madrid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sources We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of macrolides — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020181032

scholarly journals Cell-based therapies for COVID-19: A living, systematic review

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8078-e8078
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Javiera Corbalán ◽  
Patricio Rojas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Near Future

Objective This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Data sources We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until 23 April 2020 (one day before submission). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell-based therapies versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit this review to a peer-reviewed journal every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results We screened 1 043 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 61 ongoing studies, including 39 randomized trials evaluating different types of cell-based therapies in COVID-19. Conclusions We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of cell-based therapies for treating patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020179711

scholarly journals Mesenchymal stromal cells for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Javiera Corbalán ◽  
Patricio Rojas ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mesenchymal Stromal Cells ◽  
Stromal Cells ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the impact of mesenchymal stromal cells outcomes important to patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of mesenchymal stromal cells versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Oxymetazoline for the treatment of rosacea-associated persistent facial erythema. Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geovanna Cárdenas ◽  
Francisco Novillo ◽  
Shuheng Lai ◽  
Héctor Fuenzalida ◽  
Francisca Verdugo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Facial Erythema ◽  
Central Register ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of oxymetazoline in patients with moderate to severe rosacea.Data SourcesWe will conduct a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Lilacs, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and grey literature, to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress).Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of oxymetazoline in patients with moderate to severe rosacea. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE [1] system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Ethics and DisseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.Protocol and RegistrationThis protocol was adapted to the specificities of the question assessed in this review and registered to PROSPERO with the ID CRD42020150262.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Verónica Sanguine ◽  
Fernando Tortosa ◽  
Federico Espinosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Traditional Media ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that can potentially be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence covered and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will continue until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include studies that assess patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and inform the relation between potential prognostic factors and death or disease severity. Two groups of two reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

scholarly journals Use of Apps to Promote Childhood Vaccination: Protocol for a Systematic Review

10.2196/16929 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e16929
Author(s):  
Michelle Helena Van Velthoven ◽  
Madison Milne-Ives ◽  
Caroline de Cock ◽  
Mary Mooney ◽  
Edward Meinert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
English Language ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Information Storage ◽  
Childhood Vaccination ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Technical Standards

Background The decline in the uptake of routine childhood vaccinations has resulted in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccination apps can be used as a tool to promote immunization through the provision of reminders, dissemination of information, peer support, and feedback. Objective The aim of this review is to systematically review the evidence on the use of apps to support childhood vaccination uptake, information storage, and record sharing. Methods We will identify relevant papers by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase by Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). We will review the reference lists of those studies that we include to identify relevant additional papers not initially identified using our search strategy. In addition to the use of electronic databases, we will search for grey literature on the topic. The search strategy will include only terms relating to or describing the intervention, which is app use. As almost all titles and abstracts are in English, 100% of these will be reviewed, but retrieval will be confined to papers written in the English language. We will record the search outcome on a specifically designed record sheet. Two reviewers will select observational and intervention studies, appraise the quality of the studies, and extract the relevant data. All studies will involve the use of apps relating to child vaccinations. The primary outcome is the uptake of vaccinations. Secondary outcomes are as follows: (1) use of app for sharing of information and providing vaccination reminders and (2) use of app for storage of vaccination information; knowledge and decision making by parents regarding vaccination (ie, risks and benefits of vaccination); costs and cost-effectiveness of vaccination apps; use of the app and measures of usability (eg, usefulness, acceptability, and experiences of different users: parents and health care professionals); use of technical standards for development of the app; and adverse events (eg, data leaks and misinformation). We will exclude studies that do not study an app. We anticipate a limited scope for meta-analysis and will provide a narrative overview of findings and tabular summaries of extracted data. Results This project was funded by the Sir David Cooksey Fellowship in Healthcare Translation at the University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. We will submit the full systematic review for publication in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Conclusions This review will follow, where possible, the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Review and Dissemination methodologies for conducting systematic reviews. We will report our findings based on guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The review results will be used to inform the development of a vaccination app. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/16929

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document