HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Edelman, D. Articles by Oddone, E. Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Edelman, D. Articles by Oddone, E. Z. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Impact of Diabetes Screening on Quality of Life

Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; and the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
OBJECTIVE—Diagnosis of a chronic illness can have a negative impact on patients’ perception of their well-being ("labeling" effect). We sought to determine the effects of a new diagnosis of diabetes, discovered by systematic screening, on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 1 year after diagnosis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We performed diabetes screening at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center of 1,253 outpatients, aged 45–64 years, who did not report having diabetes. Our initial screen was a serum HbA_1c measurement. All subjects with HbA_1c 6.0% were invited for follow-up measurement of blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose. A case of unrecognized diabetes was defined as HbA_1c 7.0% or fasting plasma glucose 7 mmol/dl. HRQoL was measured by Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) for all patients at baseline and 1 year after enrollment. Linear multivariable models were used to determine the independent effect of the new diagnosis of diabetes on HRQoL.

RESULTS—Mean SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) for all patients was 36.2, and mean Mental Component Score (MCS) was 49.6. A total of 56 patients (4.5%) were found to have diabetes at screening. Patients found to have diabetes at screening had mean PCS of 35.6, which was not different from a mean PCS of 36.3 for those patients found not to have diabetes (P = 0.67). After adjusting for baseline PCS values, PCS 1 year after screening was similar for patients with and without diabetes found at screening (P = 0.95). Similarly, patients found to have diabetes at screening had mean MCS of 48.8; those found not to have diabetes had MCS of 49.6 (P = 0.70). After adjusting for baseline MCS values, MCS 1 year after screening was also similar between the two groups (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS—For patients with a new diagnosis of diabetes discovered through systematic screening, HRQoL is similar to patients found not to have diabetes. Furthermore, HRQoL scores remain stable over the year after screening. This suggests that screening for diabetes has minimal, if any, "labeling" effect with respect to HRQoL.

Abbreviations: DVAMC, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center • HRQoL, health-related quality of life • MCS, Mental Component Score • PCS, Physical Component Score • SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 • VA, Veterans Administration

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The effects of systematic disease screening may either improve or worsen short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Systematic but targeted screening of asymptomatic patients may identify patients with a disease that has vague but disabling symptoms. Subsequent treatment may lead to rapid improvement in HRQoL, to the degree that the patients’ perception of ill-being was attributable to the unrecognized disease, as has been described in screening for hypothyroidism (1–3). However, the experience of being identified with a chronic disease may itself lead to a decline in HRQoL. This phenomenon, sometimes called "labeling," has been demonstrated in the case of mass screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (4) and may exist as well in screening for hypertension (5–7).

Studies that measure HRQoL in patients with established diabetes show lower HRQoL for patients with diabetes than for patients without. Most studies assessing the aspects of diabetes associated with lower HRQoL have shown that HRQoL depends on severity of complications and comorbidity (8–10). However, these studies are performed in patients already diagnosed with diabetes and, therefore, beyond the point at which either initial treatment or labeling might affect their HRQoL. Early in its course, diabetes is considered a disease of vague symptoms. It is therefore reasonable to consider the possibility that identification and treatment of unrecognized diabetes might rapidly improve HRQoL. Similarly, it is also reasonable to consider that the diagnosis of diabetes might cause a labeling effect. No published studies have addressed these issues in the context of asymptomatic screening for diabetes.

We had two objectives in this study. First, we sought to measure possible differences in HRQoL associated with unrecognized diabetes. Second, we sought to determine whether the change in HRQoL over the first year after diagnosis is different for patients found to have diabetes at screening than for those not to have diabetes, that is, to determine whether screening for diabetes and the associated new diagnosis of diabetes show shows any "labeling" effect regarding HRQoL.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Patients
We identified all patients aged 45–64 years who had kept an outpatient visit at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DVAMC) between October 1996 and March 1999. We sent all these patients a one-page questionnaire that asked whether the patient had diabetes and whether we could contact them by telephone for a research study. Respondents denying knowledge of diabetes or "high blood glucose" and agreeing to be telephoned were contacted by telephone and scheduled for enrollment into the study at their next visit to the DVAMC.

Diabetes screening protocol
The study and enrollment strategy were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the DVAMC. Before enrollment, we obtained written informed consent from all subjects. At the initial visit, we once again asked about diabetes and excluded patients who said they had diabetes. We also excluded patients who had had a prescription filled at the DVAMC pharmacy for a hypoglycemic medication, had a short life expectancy (incurable cancer, heart or lung disease requiring oxygen), or had no easy access to a telephone.

We obtained HbA_1c measurements on all subjects. All subjects with HbA_1c 6.0% were invited back for follow-up fasting plasma glucose measurement. Diabetes was defined as HbA_1c 7.0% or fasting plasma glucose 7 mmol/l (126 mg/dl). Although screening and diagnosis of diabetes by means of HbA_1c is not standard, the approach was used for two reasons. First, the convenience of performing a nonfasting test allowed rapid enrollment of patients into the study. Second, the nonfasting test mimics a reasonable strategy that might be used by a medical center to perform mass screening of patients, whether or not they are fasting. At the conservative diagnostic cut point that we chose for further evaluation (HbA_1c = 6.0%, 2 SDs above mean and the upper limit of normal on our machine) and in a screening population, the sensitivity of HbA_1c for the diagnosis of diabetes is 75–93% (11,12).

Outcome measures and covariates
At enrollment, we obtained multiple demographic and questionnaire measures. Comorbidity and medical illnesses were assessed using the Kaplan-Feinstein comorbidity index for patients with diabetes (12), modified for use in patient interview format. This instrument categorizes both individual disease and overall comorbidity as being absent, mild, moderate, or severe. We assessed exercise by using the Framingham Physical Activity Index, a valid measure of exercise that predicts cardiovascular morbidity (13). The index is a continuous measure, but because of grossly nonnormal distribution, we divided patients into higher and lower physical activity groups by dividing patients at the median activity level.

We measured HRQoL with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire (14,15). Briefly, the SF-36 is a 36-item questionnaire developed and validated in a cohort of medical outpatients. The Physical Component Scale (PCS) and Mental Component Scale (MCS) are established SF-36 scales that measure HRQoL attributable to physical and mental health, respectively (16). Both scales are normalized to a population mean of 50 and SD of 10.

We chose the SF-36 for three primary reasons. First, we were unable to choose a diabetes-specific measure of HRQoL, as there was no unifying disease for our entire population. Second, the SF-36 has outstanding discrimination in Veterans Administration (VA) populations (17–19), in that it has a near-normal distribution for VA patients with no aggregation of scores near either end of the scale. More sensitive global health status measures are designed for a healthier population than VA patients, and responses among VA users tend to cluster near the bottom of the scale, leaving less room for changes potentially caused by external events (20). Third, because of its extensive use, the magnitude of changes in the SF-36 can be easily clinically interpreted. The smallest clinically important change in PCS is 2 points (21,22), roughly equivalent to the difference in quality of life between healthy populations and populations with hypertension.

Analysis
The sample size goal of n = 1,255 was chosen to provide narrow CIs around the prevalence of unrecognized diabetes in the target population. We defined the prevalence of unrecognized diabetes as the proportion of new cases identified in the sample. Descriptive statistics were computed. Unadjusted comparisons between patients with and without diabetes were performed using Student’s t tests for continuous variables and ² for categorical variables. Multivariable analysis for baseline SF-36 data was performed using traditional linear regression. Multivariable analysis for follow-up SF-36 data was performed using ANCOVA. All multivariable models were performed with both case deletion and multiple imputation methods for handling missing data (23). Results for the two approaches showed no important differences, and data from the case deletion models are presented. All analyses were performed using the SAS analysis system (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Patients
We mailed letters to 11,145 patients, and 4,994 (45%) subjects responded. Of these, 1,085 subjects (22%) reported having diabetes, and 529 surveys (11%) were incomplete or otherwise ineligible; therefore, a total of 3,380 subjects were eligible for the study. We contacted 1,452 (43% of eligible respondents) before reaching our target sample size of 1,255 enrolled patients. Two subjects were later found to have known they had diabetes and were excluded, for a total of 1,253 patients.

The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients are described in Table 1. A total of 29% of subjects described their race as African-American, and 60% were >120% of their ideal body weight. Comorbid illness was common, with only 5% having no comorbid illness and 34% having moderate or severe comorbid illness. Mean baseline SF-36 PCS and MCS were 36.2 and 49.6, respectively.

HRQoL in patients with and without diabetes
Table 2 shows the PCS and MCS values for patients found to have diabetes and patients found not to have diabetes at screening. Compared with subjects without unrecognized diabetes, subjects with unrecognized diabetes at baseline had clinically and statistically insignificantly lower PCS (35.6 vs. 36.3, P = 0.67) and MCS (48.8 vs. 49.6, P = 0.70). Patients with and without diabetes both experienced 1-point decrease in both PCS and MCS over the year of follow-up. Therefore, after 1 year of follow-up, the difference between patients with and without previously unrecognized diabetes was both clinically minimal and statistically insignificant for both PCS (34.6 vs. 35.2, P = 0.68) and MCS (48.0 vs. 48.2, P = 0.94).

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
We measured HRQoL in a large sample of VA outpatients who received systematic screening for diabetes. Our patients had the same poor physical HRQoL and relatively normal mental HRQoL usually associated with patients at VA medical centers (17,24). In this sample, we found no association between unrecognized diabetes and HRQoL assessed by a well-validated health status measure. This finding is in agreement with most published studies in diabetes and HRQoL. Other studies have shown that HRQoL in patients with diabetes is predominantly related to the prevalence of complications and comorbid illness (8–10). In this study of diabetes screening, in which patients are diagnosed with diabetes earlier in the course of their disease, most patients will not have complications. Therefore, we observe that in our sample, comorbidity is the primary determinant of HRQoL.

Additionally, 1 year after screening, there was no discernible HRQoL difference between patients with diabetes at screening and those who did not have diabetes. Therefore, the diagnosis of diabetes does not impact significantly on HRQoL 1 year after diagnosis. These findings hold true for both physical and mental HRQoL. The implications of our 1-year follow-up findings are twofold. First, the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes discovered at opportunistic screening, followed by informing the patient and provider of this diagnosis, does not seem to make a noticeable positive impact on HRQoL as measured by our global health status measure. This is not surprising, because complications and comorbidities are the primary determinant of HRQoL in patients with diabetes, and complications are unlikely to develop within 1 year of the early diagnosis of diabetes.

Second, if there is any adverse effect of being labeled with the diagnosis of diabetes, this effect is either short-lived or is not reflected in our measure of HRQoL. This does not preclude the presence of a labeling phenomenon in diabetes screening, because global health status is only one dimension of what might be referred to as "labeling." Other factors, such as anxiety and depression, may factor into each patient’s response to the diagnosis of diabetes. However, to the extent that major or even mild anxiety or depression is usually correlated with measurable deficits in global health status (25–28), our data suggest that the impact of other dimensions of labeling is likely to be relatively modest in diabetes screening.

A relatively small number of patients with diabetes were discovered at screening in this study. However, the association between diabetes and both baseline and follow-up HRQoL was so minimal that 95% CIs excluded any changes in HRQoL related to the presence of diabetes greater than 2–3 points on the PCS or MCS scale. Using Cohen’s standardized effect size (22), which is an effective way of estimating minimally clinically important differences in HRQoL measures (21), 2.0-2.5 points is a reasonable estimate of the smallest clinically important difference in either PCS or MCS. Therefore, the 95% CIs in Table 3 reflect a study large enough to exclude all but a very small clinically significant difference in HRQoL attributable to diabetes screening.

It is also unlikely that any negative effect on HRQoL of being diagnosed with diabetes was obscured by a subsequent therapeutic effect of diabetes treatment. Physical activity, which is the only element of diabetes treatment known to have a positive effect on SF-36 scores and the only potential treatment associated with PCS in our sample, was not different between patients with and without diabetes and did not change between baseline and follow-up. Many patients were not even treated for diabetes, and HbA_1c was essentially unchanged among our patients with diabetes. These low treatment rates more likely reflect a form of clinical inertia (29) to the new diagnosis of diabetes, both in patient self-perception and in physician treatment choice.

Our study has limitations. The sample is a convenience sample, recruited based in part on willingness to participate in the study, and may not generalize to VA outpatients. We do not know whether comorbidity or quality of life was different between responders and nonresponders to our initial survey. Additionally, VA medical center patients both in our study and otherwise have very poor physical HRQoL (17,24), and the impact of diabetes diagnosis and treatment on healthier (non-VA) patients may be larger. Finally, global health status measures such as the SF-36 may not be sensitive to small changes in HRQoL (30); therefore, other measures might detect these changes (20). However, because no common disease links our entire population, no disease-specific measure could be used in this study.

Neither the absence of labeling nor the absence of early HRQoL improvements addresses the central issue of diabetes screening, which is long-term prevention of complications and the cost at which that prevention is achieved (31,32). However, our data suggest that the potential for labeling is not an important barrier to diabetes screening. Our data also suggest that early HRQoL changes might not have to be considered in the complex calculations that underlie the decision to undertake or not undertake mass screening for diabetes.

	Acknowledgments

 
This study was supported by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Cooperative Studies and a VA Health Services Research Career Award (to D.E.).

	Footnotes

 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to David Edelman, HSR&D (152), Durham VA Medical Center, 508 Fulton St., Durham, NC 27705. E-mail: dedelman{at}acpub.duke.edu.

Received for publication 15 October 2001 and accepted in revised form 8 March 2002.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 

1. Biondi B, Palmieri EA, Fazio S, Cosco C, Nocera M, Sacca L, Filetti S, Lombardi G, Perticone F: Endogenous subclinical hyperthyroidism affects quality of life and cardiac morphology and function in young and middle-aged patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:4701–4705, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Helfand M, Redfern CC: Clinical guideline, part 2. Screening for thyroid disease: an update. Ann Intern Med 129:144–158, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
3. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Gerstein H, Patterson C, Molloy W, Cook D, Harper S, Griffith L, Carbotte R: Does treatment with L-thyroxine influence health status in middle-aged and older adults with subclinical hypothyroidism? J Gen Intern Med 11:744–749, 1996[Medline]
   
4. Lindholt JS, Vammen S, Fasting H, Henneberg EW: Psychological consequences of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and conservative treatment of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 20:79–83, 2000[Medline]
   
5. Rudd P, Price MG, Graham LE, Beilstein BA, Tarbell SJ, Bacchetti P, Fortmann SP: Consequences of worksite hypertension screening: changes in absenteeism. Hypertension 10:425–436, 1987[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Rudd P, Price MG, Graham LE, Beilstein BA, Tarbell SJ, Bacchetti P, Fortmann SP: Consequences of worksite hypertension screening: differential changes in psychosocial function. Am J Med 80:853–860, 1986[Medline]
   
7. Ambrosio GB, Dissegna L, Zamboni S, Santonastaso P, Canton G, Dal Palu C: Psychological effects of hypertension labeling during a community survey: a two-year follow-up. J Hypertens (Suppl 2):S171–S173, 1984
   
8. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Brown H, Gozum M, Denton P: Quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population. J Diabetes Complications 14:18–24, 2000[Medline]
   
9. Rubin RR, Peyrot M: Quality of life and diabetes. Diabetes Metab Rev 15:205–218, 1999[Medline]
   
10. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood: glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care 22:1125–1136, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
11. Marks GC, Habicht J-P, Mueller WH: Reliability, dependability, and precision of anthropometric measurements. Am J Epidemiol 130:578–587, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR: The importance of classifying initial comorbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chron Dis 27:387–404, 1974[Medline]
    
13. Garcia-Palmieri MR, Costas R Jr, Cruz-Vidal M, Sorlie PD, Havlik RJ: Increased physical activity: a protective factor against heart attacks in Puerto Rico. Am J Cardiol 50:749–755, 1982[Medline]
    
14. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483, 1992[Medline]
    
15. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczel AE: The MOS 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36): psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31:247–263, 1993[Medline]
    
16. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A: Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 33(Suppl. 4):AS264–AS279, 1995[Medline]
    
17. Kazis LE, Ren XS, Lee A, Skinner K, Rogers W, Clark J, Miller DR: Health status in VA patients: results from the Veterans Health Study. Am J Med Qual 14:28–38, 1999[Abstract]
    
18. Anderson RM, Fitzgerald JT, Wisdom K, Davis WK, Hiss RG: A comparison of global versus disease-specific quality-of-life measures in patients with NIDDM. Diabetes Care 20:299–305, 1997[Abstract]
    
19. Jacobson AM, de Groot M, Samson JA: The evaluation of two measures of quality of life in patients with type I and type II diabetes. Diabetes Care 17:267–274, 1994[Abstract]
    
20. Edelman D, Williams GR, Rothman ML, Samsa GP: A comparison of three health status measures in primary care outpatients. J Gen Intern Med 14:759–762, 1999[Medline]
    
21. Samsa GP, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar DB: Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 15:141–155, 1999[Medline]
    
22. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988
    
23. Schafer JL: Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London, Chapman & Hall, 1997
    
24. Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, Cowper PA, Shortliffe EA, Simel DL, Feussner JR: The relationship between glycemic control and health-related quality of life in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Med Care 32:1173–1181, 1994[Medline]
    
25. Wittchen HU, Carter RM, Pfister H, Montgomery SA, Kessler RC: Disabilities and quality of life in pure and comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and major depression in a national survey. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 15:319–328, 2000[Medline]
    
26. Heiligenstein JH, Ware JE Jr, Beusterien KM, Roback PJ, Andrejasich C, Tollefson GD: Acute effects of fluoxetine versus placebo on functional health and well-being in late-life depression. Int Psychogeriatr 7 (Suppl.):125–137, 1995
    
27. Williams JW Jr, Barrett J, Oxman T, Frank E, Katon W, Sullivan M, Cornell J, Sengupta A: Treatment of dysthymia and minor depression in primary care: a randomized controlled trial in older adults. JAMA 284:1519–1526, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
28. Sherbourne CD, Wells KB, Meredith LS, Jackson CA, Camp P: Comorbid anxiety disorder and the functioning and well-being of chronically ill patients of general medical providers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 53:889–895, 1996[Abstract]
    
29. Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, Doyle JP, El-Kebbi IM, Gallina DL, Miller CD, Ziemer DC, Barnes CS: Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 135:825–834, 2001
    
30. Testa MA, Simonson DC, Turner RR: Valuing quality of life and improvements in glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl. 3):C44–C52, 1998
    
31. CDC Cost-Effectiveness Study Group: The cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 280:1757–1763, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
32. Engelgau MM, Narayan KMV, Herman WH: Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:1563–1580, 2000[Abstract]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. L. Norris, D. Kansagara, C. Bougatsos, and R. Fu Screening Adults for Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, June 3, 2008; 148(11): 855 - 868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Balkau Screening for Diabetes Diabetes Care, May 1, 2008; 31(5): 1084 - 1085. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. C Eborall, S. J Griffin, A T. Prevost, A.-L. Kinmonth, D. P French, and S. Sutton Psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes: controlled trial and comparative study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial BMJ, September 8, 2007; 335(7618): 486 - 486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Sultan, J. Conway, D. Edelman, T. Dudley, and D. Provenzale Colorectal cancer screening in young patients with poor health and severe comorbidity. Arch Intern Med, November 13, 2006; 166(20): 2209 - 2214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Harris, K. Donahue, S. S. Rathore, P. Frame, S. H. Woolf, and K. N. Lohr Screening Adults for Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, February 4, 2003; 138(3): 215 - 229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Speight Assessing the Impact of Diabetes Screening on Quality of Life or Quality of Health?: Semantics are important Diabetes Care, October 1, 2002; 25(10): 1893 - 1894. [Full Text]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Edelman, D. Articles by Oddone, E. Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Edelman, D. Articles by Oddone, E. Z. Social Bookmarking                What's this?