scholarly journals Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Woolf ◽  
Phil Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Response Data ◽  
Randomised Control Trials ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
The Impact

AbstractBackgroundQuestionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is ten years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.ObjectivesUpdate Edwards et al. (2009) to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias.MethodsData sources: Edwards et al. (2009); 13 data-bases; the references in, and citations of included studies. Eligibility criteria: Randomised control trials examining the impact of pre-notification on response. Data extraction: data extraction was done twice by a single unblinded reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and funnel plots.Results103 trials were included. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.38 (95%CI: 1.25-1.53). However, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was greatly reduced (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.21).ConclusionsThe evidence implies that while pre-notification does increase response rates, this may not be of clinical utility.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.

scholarly journals Prognostic models for predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in resource-limited countries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035045
Author(s):  
Morris Ogero ◽  
Rachel Jelagat Sarguta ◽  
Lucas Malla ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
Ambrose Agweyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment

ObjectivesTo identify and appraise the methodological rigour of multivariable prognostic models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of peer-reviewed journals.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Web of Science electronic databases since inception to August 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included model development studies predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC.Data extraction and synthesisThis systematic review followed the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies framework. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). No quantitative summary was conducted due to substantial heterogeneity that was observed after assessing the studies included.ResultsOur search strategy identified a total of 4054 unique articles. Among these, 3545 articles were excluded after review of titles and abstracts as they covered non-relevant topics. Full texts of 509 articles were screened for eligibility, of which 15 studies reporting 21 models met the eligibility criteria. Based on the PROBAST tool, risk of bias was assessed in four domains; participant, predictors, outcome and analyses. The domain of statistical analyses was the main area of concern where none of the included models was judged to be of low risk of bias.ConclusionThis review identified 21 models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC. However, most reports characterising these models are of poor quality when judged against recent reporting standards due to a high risk of bias. Future studies should adhere to standardised methodological criteria and progress from identifying new risk scores to validating or adapting existing scores.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088599.

scholarly journals Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham Shoman ◽  
Simone Sandler ◽  
Alexander Peters ◽  
Ameer Farooq ◽  
Magdalen Gruendl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Resource Setting

Abstract Background Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis–Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. Discussion This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. Trial registration The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338

scholarly journals Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Young ◽  
Jan Hartvigsen ◽  
Rikke K. Jensen ◽  
Ewa M. Roos ◽  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Case Definitions ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and are reported according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication data and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA.Discussion: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO, awaiting registration

scholarly journals Predicting future self-harm or suicide in adolescents: a systematic review of risk assessment scales/tools

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isobel Marion Harris ◽  
Sophie Beese ◽  
David Moore
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Predictive Ability ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Self Harm

ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the ability of risk tools to predict the future episodes of suicide/self-harm in adolescents.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 March 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesCohort studies, case–control studies and randomised controlled trials of adolescents aged 10–25 who had undergone risk assessment in a clinical setting following an episode of self-harm were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were grouped by tool and narrative synthesis undertaken, with studies appraised using a checklist combining the QUIPS (Quality In Prognosis Studies) and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tools.ResultsOf the 17 137 articles initially identified, 11 studies evaluating 10 separate tools were included. The studies varied in setting, population and outcome measure. The majority of the studies were rated as having an unclear risk of bias, and meta-analysis was not possible due to high variability between studies.The ability of the tools to correctly identify those adolescents going on to make a self-harm/suicide attempt ranged from 27% (95% CI 10.7% to 50.2%) to 95.8% (95% CI 78.9% to 99.9%). A variety of metrics were provided for 1–10 points increases in various tools, for example, odds and HRs.ConclusionsThis systematic review is the first to explore the use of assessment tools in adolescents. The predictive ability of these tools varies greatly. No single tool is suitable for predicting a higher risk of suicide or self-harm in adolescent populations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017058686

scholarly journals Use of implantable meshes for augmented rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e039552
Author(s):  
Mathew Baldwin ◽  
N S Nagra ◽  
Gemma Greenall ◽  
Andrew J Carr ◽  
David Beard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Surgical Meshes

ObjectiveTo appraise studies reporting on clinical effectiveness and safety of surgical meshes used to augment rotator cuff repairs (RCRs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched between April 2006 and April 2020.Eligibility criteriaAll studies evaluating adults (≥18 years) undergoing RCR were considered. There were no language restrictions.Data extraction and synthesisScreening, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects models if ≥2 comparative studies reported the same outcome measure. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken for randomised (RoB2, Cochrane) and comparative studies (ROBINS-I, Cochrane).ResultsWe included 60 studies, consisting of 7 randomised controlled trials, 13 observational comparative studies and 40 observational case series. All comparative studies reported on shoulder-specific functional outcome scores, 18 on the radiographic occurrence of re-tear and 14 on pain score metrics. All studies contained some risk of bias.Compared with non-augmented repair, a small improvement in shoulder-specific function or pain scores was observed for synthetic patches with a mean improvement of 6.7 points on the University of California Los Angles (UCLA) shoulder score (95% CI 0.1 to 13.4) and 0.46 point reduction on the Visual Analogue Scale (95% CI −0.74 to −0.17), respectively. A reduced likelihood of radiologically observed re-tear was observed for synthetic (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) and allograft (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.65) patches. A total of 49 studies reported on the occurrence of complications. Slightly higher crude complication rates were observed following patch-augmented repair (2.1%) than standard repair (1.6%).ConclusionsWhile several studies suggest a decreased failure rate and small improvements in shoulder function and pain following augmented RCR, a paucity of rigorous clinical evaluation, for both effectiveness and safety, prevents firm recommendations.Prospero registration numberCRD42017057908.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of XP-Endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation on intracanal medicament removal from root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiani Zhou ◽  
Tingjun Liu ◽  
Lihong Guo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ultrasonic Irrigation

Abstract Background XP-Endo Finisher (XPF) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) are commonly used in intracanal medicament removal. The effectiveness of these two techniques needs to be compared, and evidence-based research should be conducted. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to December 20th, 2020. The outcomes of the included trials were pooled into the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager 5.3 software. Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool 2.0 was applied to assess the risk of bias. Results Nine articles were included in this systematic review and processed for data extraction, and eight studies were identified for meta-analysis. In general, the use of PUI showed better medicament removal effectiveness than XPF (odds ratio [OR]: 3.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.96–4.86; P < 0.001). PUI was also significantly more efficient than XPF in the apical third (OR: 3.42; 95% CI, 1.32–8.84; P = 0.01). For trials using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) alone, PUI was also significantly more effective than XPF on intracanal medicaments removal (OR: 5.23; 95% CI, 2.79–9.82; P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between PUI and XPF when NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) were used in combination (OR: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.74–3.09; P = 0.26). In addition, for studies whose intracanal medicament periods were two weeks, the effectiveness of PUI was statistically better than the XPF (OR: 7.73; 95% CI, 3.71–16.07; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, for trials whose intracanal medicament time was one week or over two weeks, no differences between the XPF and PUI were found (OR: 1.54; 95% CI, 0.74–3.22; P = 0.25) (OR: 1.42; 95% CI, 0.44–4.61; P = 0.56). Conclusions The meta-analysis is the first study to quantitatively compare the effectiveness of XPF and PUI techniques on intracanal medicaments removal. With rigorous eligibility criteria, the study only included high-quality randomised controlled trials. The study indicated that PUI might be superior over XPF techniques for removing intracanal medicaments from artificial standardized grooves and cavities in the root canal system. The anatomical areas, irrigation protocol, and intracanal medicaments time may influence the cleaning efficacy.

scholarly journals The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-273
Author(s):  
Jan M. Sargeant ◽  
Michele D. Bergevin ◽  
Katheryn Churchill ◽  
Kaitlyn Dawkins ◽  
Bhumika Deb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Conversion Ratio ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Feed Conversion Ratio ◽  
Feed Conversion ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Alternative Product

AbstractThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and acceptability of different antihypertensive drug classes for cardiovascular disease prevention: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044302
Author(s):  
Heidi Jussil ◽  
Anna Chaimani ◽  
Bo Carlberg ◽  
Mattias Brunström
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antihypertensive Drug ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionClinical practice guidelines differ in their recommendations on first-line antihypertensive drug classes. No adequately powered randomised controlled trial have assessed all major drug classes against each other, and previous meta-analyses have mainly relied on pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons.Methods and analysisA systematic review and network meta-analysis will be carried out to assess the efficacy and acceptability of all major antihypertensive drug classes. PubMed and CENTRAL were searched on 21 February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials with at least 1000 person-years of follow-up, assessing any antihypertensive agent against other agents or placebo. All trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be assessed for risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool. The study selection process, risk of bias assessment and data extraction are done by two authors in duplicate. Relative risks from individual trials will be combined in pairwise meta-analyses; in the absence of important intransitivity, random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed. The primary outcome for efficacy will be major adverse cardiovascular events, whereas the primary acceptability outcome will be treatment discontinuation for any reason. Additional outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and acute renal failure. The impact of differences within drug classes will be explored through alternative networks, including analysing thiazide-like and thiazide-type diuretics separately.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only process aggregated study level data and does not require ethical approval. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020205482.

scholarly journals Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Young ◽  
Jan Hartvigsen ◽  
Rikke K. Jensen ◽  
Ewa M. Roos ◽  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Case Definitions ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication date and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias assessment will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA. Discussion The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, awaiting registration

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document