-
International Journal of Pediatric... Jan 2017Childhood haemoptysis is an uncommon presentation to the otolaryngologist but has a varied aetiology and can be life-threatening. We performed a systematic review of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Childhood haemoptysis is an uncommon presentation to the otolaryngologist but has a varied aetiology and can be life-threatening. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess paediatric otolaryngologists' experience with haemoptysis, the aetiology involved, investigations performed and management provided. Using this, we produce an evidence-based treatment algorithm to guide clinicians.
METHODS
Systematic literature review of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration using the search terms 'paediatric', 'child', 'neonate', 'adolescent', 'haemoptysis', 'coughing blood', 'spitting blood' and 'otorhinolaryngology'.
RESULTS
Five articles were retrieved meeting the search criteria including 106 patients (age range 3 weeks to 18 years). The 3 most common aetiologies were bronchitis (n = 9), idiopathic/ no cause found (n = 9) and pneumonia (n = 7). Flexible bronchoscopy was the commonest investigation performed in non-active cases whilst rigid bronchoscopy was performed for active haemoptysis to provide therapeutic interventions. Chest x-ray was performed as a screening investigation rather than CT scan, which was reserved to assess pathology further, in recurrent cases and when x-ray is inconclusive. Management depended on aetiology. There was no difference in aetiology between age ranges.
CONCLUSIONS
Haemoptysis aetiology is varied and non-cancerous but is life-threatening in cases of pulmonary agenesis and vasculature abnormalities. No cause may be found. Clinicians' investigations and management plans should be based on the established care of haemoptysis. There is no difference between otolaryngologists and respiratory physicians' experience.
Topics: Abnormalities, Multiple; Adolescent; Bronchitis; Bronchoscopy; Child; Child, Preschool; Heart Defects, Congenital; Hemoptysis; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lung; Lung Diseases; Otolaryngology; Pneumonia; Pulmonary Artery; Pulmonary Veins; Radiography, Thoracic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Vascular Malformations
PubMed: 28012543
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.10.021 -
Heart Rhythm May 2017Early studies demonstrated relatively low success rates for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Early studies demonstrated relatively low success rates for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). However, the advent of new technologies and the observation that additional substrate ablation does not improve outcomes have created a new focus on PVI alone for treatment of PeAF.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the recent medical literature to determine current medium-term outcomes when a PVI-only approach is used for PeAF.
METHODS
An electronic database search (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane) was performed in August 2016. Only studies of PeAF patients undergoing a "PVI only" ablation strategy using contemporary radiofrequency (RF) technology or second-generation cryoballoon (CB2) were included. A random-effects model was used to assess the primary outcome of pooled single-procedure 12-month arrhythmia-free survival. Predictors of recurrence were also examined and a meta-analysis performed if ≥4 studies examined the parameter.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies of 956 patients, of whom 45.2% underwent PVI only with RF and 54.8% with CB2, were included. Pooled single-procedure 12-month arrhythmia-free survival was 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.8%-72.2%), with the majority of patients (80.5%) off antiarrhythmic drugs. Complication rates were very low, with cardiac tamponade occurring in 5 patients (0.6%) and persistent phrenic nerve palsy in 5 CB2 patients (0.9% of CB2). Blanking period recurrence (hazard ratio 4.68, 95% CI 1.70-12.9) was the only significant predictor of recurrence.
CONCLUSION
A PVI-only strategy in PeAF patients with a low prevalence of structural heart disease using contemporary technology yields excellent outcomes comparable to those for paroxysmal AF ablation.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Humans; Pulmonary Veins
PubMed: 28434446
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.01.003 -
Thrombosis Journal Jul 2023Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common thrombotic vascular disease that has a significant impact on people's well-being and quality of life. A plethora of clinical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common thrombotic vascular disease that has a significant impact on people's well-being and quality of life. A plethora of clinical studies explore the relationship between inflammatory biomarkers and VTE but yield conflicting results. This article proposed to pool these studies to draw a more convincing conclusion.
METHODS
We searched several databases for studies before April 2023. Available data was processed using Stata software (version 15.0 SE) and R (version 4.1.2). This meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022321815). The VTE in this review encompassed pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and cerebral venous thrombosis.
RESULTS
A total of 25 articles were finally involved in this study. Our results revealed that higher levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP, MD, 0.63, 95%CI, 0.21-1.05) and C-reactive protein (CRP)> 3ug/ml (OR, 1.52, 95%CI, 1.18-1.96) might be regarded as risk factors for future VTE occurrence. The elevated levels of monocyte (MD, 0.03, 95%CI, 0.00-0.05), hs-CRP (0.85, 0.61-1.08), CRP (0.66, 0.20-1.13) and IL-6 (0.47, 0.25-0.70) might represent the previous VTE; a series of markers such as white blood cell (1.43, 0.88-1.98), neutrophil (1.79, 1.02-2.56), monocyte (0.17, 0.14-0.21), hs-CRP (3.72, 1.45-5.99), IL-6 (5.99, 4.52-7.46), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (33.1, 24.45-41.78) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (1.34, 0.95-1.73) increased during the acute phase of VTE.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, activated inflammatory biomarkers might not only be correlated with an increased risk of VTE, but may also give a hint of the occurrence of VTE in clinical settings.
PubMed: 37525162
DOI: 10.1186/s12959-023-00526-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017About 5% to 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremities. Serious complications of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, such as post-thrombotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
About 5% to 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremities. Serious complications of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, such as post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, may in theory be avoided using thrombolysis. No systematic review has assessed the effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (29 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and three trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISRCTN registry) for ongoing and unpublished studies. We additionally searched the registries of the European Medical Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration (December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of publication type, publication date and language that investigated the effects of thrombolytics added to anticoagulation, thrombolysis versus anticoagulation, or thrombolysis versus any other type of medical intervention for the treatment of acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all records to identify those that met inclusion criteria. We planned to use the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We planned to use trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias) in the trials. We planned to conduct trial sequential analyses to control for the risk of random errors and to assess the robustness of our conclusions. We planned to consider a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were severe bleeding, pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no trials eligible for inclusion. We also identified no ongoing trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence from which to draw conclusion on the benefits or harms of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis as an add-on therapy to anticoagulation, alone compared with anticoagulation, or alone compared with any other type of medical intervention. Large randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are warranted. They should focus on clinical outcomes and not solely on surrogate measures.
Topics: Acute Disease; Humans; Thrombolytic Therapy; Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis
PubMed: 29226949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012175.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia. Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.
Topics: Aged; Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Heparin; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35244208
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013739.pub2 -
Thrombosis Research Sep 2018Anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the mainstay for the treatment of patients with acute cerebral vein... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the mainstay for the treatment of patients with acute cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) with or without intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
AIM
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of LMWH compared to UFH for the treatment of acute CVT.
METHODS
An electronic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, CENTRAL and Google Scholar was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for acute treatment of CVT were included. Outcomes of interest included mortality, disability, new ICH and pulmonary embolism (PE).
RESULTS
Overall, 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Two trials compared anticoagulation (UFH (N = 1) and LMWH (N = 1)) to placebo. The use of anticoagulation therapy was associated with an odd ratio (OR) for mortality and disability of 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.45; p = 0.14) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.01; p = 0.05), respectively. Three new ICHs were observed among patients receiving placebo and no patient had a PE complication. The other two trials compared LMWH to UFH. LMWH was associated with an OR for mortality and disability of 0.21 (95% CI 0.02 to 2.44, p = 0.21) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.11 to 2.23; p = 0.36), respectively. There were no new events of ICH or PE.
CONCLUSION
LMWH seems to be safe and effective for the management of acute CVT.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Intracranial Thrombosis; Pulmonary Embolism; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 30056293
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.07.023 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Nov 2016Spine surgery has been growing rapidly as a neurosurgical operation, with an increase of 220% over a 15-year period. Intraoperative blood transfusion is a major outcome... (Review)
Review
Spine surgery has been growing rapidly as a neurosurgical operation, with an increase of 220% over a 15-year period. Intraoperative blood transfusion is a major outcome determinant of spine procedures. Various approaches, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, have been tested to decrease both intraoperative and postoperative blood loss. The aim of this systematic review is to report clinical evidence on the relationship between intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome) and on transfusion requirements and postoperative complications (secondary outcomes) in patients undergoing spine surgery. A literature search of PubMed database was performed using 5 key words: spine surgery and transfusion; spine surgery and blood loss; spine surgery and blood complications; spine surgery and deep vein thrombosis; and spine surgery and pulmonary embolism. Clinical reports (randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies, and case reports) were selected. A total of 473 articles were examined; 450 were excluded, and 24 were selected for this systematic review. Selected articles were categorized into 3 subchapters: (1) drugs active on coagulation (12 studies): tranexamic acid, aminocaproic acid, aprotinin, and recombinant activated factor VII; (2) drugs not active on coagulation (5 studies): ketorolac, epoetin alfa, magnesium sulfate, propofol/sevoflurane, and omega-3 and fish oil; (3) nonpharmacologic approaches (7 studies): surgical tips, patient positioning, and general or spinal anesthesia. Several studies have shown a significant reduction in intraoperative bleeding during spine surgery and in the requirement for blood transfusion.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Diseases
PubMed: 27749350
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001485 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Oct 2023Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS)... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Hospitalisation and surgery are major risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and graduated compression stockings (GCS) are common mechanical prophylaxis devices used to prevent VTE. This review compares the safety and efficacy of IPC and GCS used singularly and in combination for surgical patients.
METHODS
Ovid Medline and Pubmed were searched in a systematic review of the literature, and relevant articles were assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion along PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
This review is a narrative description and critical analysis of available evidence. Fourteen articles were included in this review after meeting the criteria. Results of seven studies comparing the efficacy of IPC versus GCS had high heterogeneity but overall suggested IPC was superior to GCS. A further seven studies compared the combination of IPC and GCS versus GCS alone, the results of which suggest that combination mechanical prophylaxis may be superior to GCS alone in high-risk patients. No studies compared combination therapy to IPC alone. IPC appeared to have a superior safety profile, although it had a worse compliance rate and the quality of evidence was poor. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis may make mechanical prophylaxis superfluous in the post-operative setting.
CONCLUSION
IPC may be superior to GCS when used as a single prophylactic device. A combination of IPC and GCS may be more efficacious than GCS alone for high-risk patients. Further high-quality research is needed focusing on clinical relevance, safety and comparing combination mechanical prophylaxis to IPC alone, particularly in high-risk surgical settings when pharmacological prophylaxis is contraindicated.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Stockings, Compression; Combined Modality Therapy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37851108
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03142-6 -
The Journal of Pediatrics Jul 2018To quantify outcomes of infants (<1 year of age) diagnosed with pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To quantify outcomes of infants (<1 year of age) diagnosed with pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS).
STUDY DESIGN
MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through February 1, 2017, with no language restrictions. Publications including infants diagnosed with primary PVS, defined as the absence of preceding intervention(s), were considered. The study was performed according to Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, the Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis checklist, and registered prospectively. The quality of selected reports was critically examined. Data extraction was independently performed by multiple observers with outcomes agreed upon a priori. Data were pooled using an inverse variance heterogeneity model with incidence of mortality the primary outcome of interest.
RESULTS
Forty-eight studies of 185 infants were included. Studies were highly diverse with regards to the participants, interventions, and outcomes reported. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 5.0 (0.1-11.6) months. Pooled mortality was 58.5% (95% CI 49.8%-67.0%, I = 21.4%). We observed greater mortality incidence among infants with 3 or 4 vein stenoses than in those with 1 or 2 vein stenoses (83.3% vs 36.1%; P < .01). We observed greater mortality among infants with bilateral than unilateral disease (78.7% vs 26.0%; P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of primary PVS during infancy are highly variable in their methodological quality and estimates of clinical outcomes; therefore, estimates of prognosis remain uncertain. Multicenter, interdisciplinary collaborations, including alignment of key outcome measurements, are needed to answer questions beyond the scope of available data.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Stenosis, Pulmonary Vein
PubMed: 29650415
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.02.030 -
Expert Review of Hematology Jun 2022COVID-19 crisis continues around the world. Some patients developed complications after the disease, which have been reported in limited studies. The aim of this study...
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 crisis continues around the world. Some patients developed complications after the disease, which have been reported in limited studies. The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the post-COVID hematologic complications in patients.
AREAS COVERED
We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar between January 2020 and August 2021 using related keywords. Evaluation of the article was performed by two independent researchers. The extracted data included the number of patients, age, type of hematological complication, duration of follow-up, response to treatment and prognosis.
EXPERT OPINION
Sixty-five articles reported post-COVID hematologic complications. The most frequent hematologic complication in COVID-19 patients is thromboembolic events, which often occur in two forms: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). In a group of patients after the diagnosis of COVID-19, a significant decrease in platelets was observed, which was attributed to the ITP induced by COVID-19. Hemolytic anemia and aplastic anemia have also been reported rarely in patients. Finally, post-COVID hematologic complications appear to go beyond thromboembolic events. Although these complications have rarely been reported, searching for methods to identify susceptible patients and prevent these complications could be the subject of future research.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Pulmonary Embolism; Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 35584541
DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2022.2080051