0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Paper |

Toll of Methamphetamine on the Trauma System FREE

Gail T. Tominaga, MD; George Garcia, MD; Alex Dzierba, RN, MSN; Jan Wong, MD
Arch Surg. 2004;139(8):844-847. doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.8.844.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  Methamphetamine use affects length of hospital stay in the minimally injured patient.

Design  Case series.

Setting  The only tertiary trauma center serving Hawaii.

Patients  Trauma patients examined during a 12-month period with an Injury Severity Score of 1 to 5 and an age of 18 to 55 years undergoing urine toxicology screen for suspected suicide attempt or altered sensorium.

Main Outcome Measures  Presence or absence of amphetamine or methamphetamine on urine toxicology screen, intention of injury, hospital admission rate, length of stay, and hospital charges.

Results  During the study period, 1650 trauma patients were examined, with 544 meeting study criteria. Urine toxicology screens were performed in 212 patients, with 57 positive and 155 negative for amphetamine or methamphetamine. There was no difference in sex (77% vs 73% male; P = .53), Injury Severity Score (3.2 for both groups), or total number of computed tomographic scans performed (mean ± SEM, 3.0 ± 0.3 vs 4.0 ± 0.3; P = .07). Patients in the positive group were more likely to have intentional self-inflicted injury or intentional assaults than patients in the negative group (37% vs 22%; P = .04). The positive group was older than the negative group (33.6 ± 1.3 vs 29.9 ± 0.8 years; P = .02), had a significantly longer hospital stay (2.7 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.1 days; P = .003), had significantly higher hospital charges ($15 617 ± $1866 vs $11 600 ± $648; P = .01), and was more likely admitted to the hospital (91% vs 70%; P = .001) despite the low Injury Severity Score.

Conclusion  Methamphetamine use results in trauma center resource utilization out of proportion to injury severity.

Methamphetamine use has become a major health care problem in the United States, with Hawaii leading the nation in methamphetamine use.1 Crystal methamphetamine, known as "ice," is a freebase form of amphetamine and is the smokable form. Methamphetamine, like cocaine, is a potent stimulator of the central nervous system that induces the feeling of euphoria, increases alertness, reduces fatigue, intensifies emotions, increases aggression, and increases libido.2 Unfortunately, its use also causes diaphoresis, increases blood pressure and heart rate, and can cause anxiety, irritability, insomnia, paranoia, and sometimes psychosis. Once the drug wears off, mental and physical exhaustion occurs, often with deep depression. Unlike cocaine, the effect of methamphetamine lasts for 6 to 12 hours or more, depending on the dose and urine pH.3 Methamphetamine is abused because of its long-lasting euphoric effects and rapid absorption from the lungs, resulting in almost instant clinical effects4 from inhalation of the smokable form. In addition, "ice" is relatively easy to produce, with the main ingredients being ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.4,5

Methamphetamine has become a major social problem, with 40% of people arrested in Honolulu, Hawaii, testing positive for methamphetamine, the highest rate in the country.6 According to the Honolulu Medical Examiner's Office, deaths associated with crystal methamphetamine use have nearly doubled in 2 years.6 The Treatment Episode System and the State Department of Health's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division show treatment program admissions for methamphetamine abuse quadrupled between 1994 and 2002. For the first time, in 2003, methamphetamine was the leading drug of abuse in those seeking drug treatment in our state.7

Methamphetamine abuse is not a problem unique to Hawaii. According to the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, an estimated 8.8 million people (4.0% of the population) have tried methamphetamine at some time in their lives.7 The National Institute on Drug Abuse's Community Epidemiology Work Group reported in 2001 that methamphetamine continues to be a problem in Hawaii and in major western cities, such as San Francisco, Calif; Denver, Colo; and Los Angeles, Calif.7 Schermer and Wisner8 reported methamphetamine as the most common drug found on urine toxicology in trauma patients in the greater Sacramento, Calif, area. They also reported that the use of methamphetamine nearly doubled (from 7.4% to 13.4%), while the use of cocaine remained constant and the use of alcohol actually declined from 1989 to 1994. In some regions of the West Coast, methamphetamine has become the dominant drug of abuse.9

Methamphetamine is a psychostimulant and, because of its effects, can cause aggressive and erratic behavior. This may account for the higher incidence of intentional injury associated with methamphetamine use reported by Loiselle et al10 and Madan et al.11 In addition, psychomotor performance is impaired at high doses or during withdrawal. This, along with the accumulated sleep deprivation after methamphetamine use, may be an important factor in methamphetamine-related motor vehicle collisions.12 Methamphetamine use in the trauma patient may make it difficult to clearly diagnose injuries, because there is an incomplete or unreliable history as a result of the psychological effects of the drug, and the physiological effects of methamphetamine may influence the physical presentation. In addition, the clinical course may be influenced by the exhaustion and depression that sets in as the effects of the drug subside.

This study was undertaken to determine whether the use of methamphetamine impacts hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospital resource utilization in the minimally injured trauma patient.

All trauma patients admitted to one regional tertiary trauma center from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, were identified from a prospectively maintained trauma registry. This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Data obtained from the registry included age, sex, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score (ISS), admission to the hospital, hospital LOS, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU LOS, charges billed, and outcome. Length of stay was defined as 1 day if the patient was discharged on the same day as emergency department admission. Otherwise, LOS was equal to the day of discharge minus the day of admission.

Trauma patients between the ages of 18 and 55 years with an ISS of 1 to 5 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Toxicology screens were obtained for suspected suicide attempt or altered sensorium with attending physician suspicion of illicit drug use. Urine toxicology screens were qualitative and performed by means of enzyme multiplied immunoassay (EMIT; Syva Co, San Jose, Calif). All positive test results were confirmed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Comparisons were made between the group of study patients with urine toxicology screens positive for amphetamine or methamphetamine and those with screens negative for amphetamine or methamphetamine.

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 10.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). Continuous variables were compared by 2-tailed t tests for independent means, and the results are given as mean ± SEM. Nominal variables were compared by χ2 analysis. P<.05 was considered significant.

During the study period, 1650 trauma patients were examined, with 544 meeting study inclusion criteria. Excluded from analysis was 1 patient who attempted suicide by hanging, as the ISS does not capture the severity of that type of injury. Three hundred thirty-one patients did not have a urine toxicology screen performed and were excluded from further analysis, leaving a total of 212 patients for analysis.

Of the 212 patients, 157 (74.1%) were male; the mean age was 30.9 ± 0.7 years and the mean ISS was 3.2 ± 0.1. The mean LOS for all patients was 2.0 ± 0.2 days. There were 151 accidental injuries (71.2%), 43 injuries by assault (20.3%), 12 attempted suicides (5.7%), and 6 (2.8%) were "found down." Mechanism of injury was predominantly motor vehicle related (101 [47.6%]), followed by blunt assault (27 [12.7%]) and stab wounds (22 [10.4%]) (Table 1). There were no deaths.

Results of urine toxicology screens for amphetamine and methamphetamine were positive in 57 patients and negative in 155. There was no significant difference between groups in sex (77% male in the positive group vs 73% male in the negative group; P = .53), Glasgow Coma Scale score (14.6 vs 14.4; P = .16), or ISS (mean ISS, 3.2 for both groups) (Table 2). The positive group was more likely than the negative group to have intentional injury (37% vs 22%; P = .04) (Table 3). The positive group was slightly older than the negative group (mean age, 33.6 ± 1.3 years vs 29.9 ± 0.8 years; P = .02) and more likely to be admitted to the hospital (91% vs 70%; P = .001). A slightly higher percentage of patients in the screen-positive group were admitted to the ICU compared with those whose screens were negative (14% vs 9%), but this was not statistically significant (P = .29). Likewise, ICU LOS was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .18). The mean number of head computed tomographic scans performed and the mean total number of computed tomographic scans performed were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the charges billed to the positive group ($15 617 ± $1866 vs $11 600 ± $648; P = .01) and total hospital LOS (2.7 ± 0.4 days vs 1.7 ± 0.1 days; P = .003) (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics of Patient Groups

Our study demonstrated an increased use of hospital resources, measured by hospital LOS and charges, in the minimally injured adult trauma patients who tested positive for methamphetamine. This can be explained by the physiological and psychological effects of the drug.

Methamphetamine is a sympathomimetic amine that enhances the release of catecholamines centrally and peripherally.13 Methamphetamine has greater central nervous system effects than amphetamines, possibly because of its increased half-life and better central nervous system penetration.3 Animal models indicate that methamphetamine is twice as potent as amphetamine.14 Both the short- and long-term toxic effects of methamphetamine mirror those of all other amphetamine-related compounds. They have significant cardiopulmonary, neurologic, and systemic effects, all of which may confuse the picture when a patient is examined after acute trauma. Cardiopulmonary symptoms include chest pain, palpitations, and dyspnea.3 Methamphetamine-related pulmonary hypertension,3 myocardial infarction,15 and acute pulmonary edema developing 24 to 36 hours after the use of smokable methamphetamine16 have also been reported.

The initial feeling of increased mental and physical powers after methamphetamine use quickly evaporates with prolonged use and high doses. In toxic doses, methamphetamine produces severe central nervous system symptoms such as agitation, anxiety, hallucinations, delirium, psychosis, seizures, and death.3 In Hawaii, the most common presentation in chronic users is acute psychosis with auditory hallucinations and paranoia.14 In addition, the use of methamphetamine with alcohol increases the psychological and cardiac effects,3 and the combination of methamphetamine and nicotine results in the production of cyanomethylmethamphetamine, which has been demonstrated to have a greater psychostimulant effect than methamphetamine alone.17 Reports of severe systemic toxicity among methamphetamine users is common. These presentations vary but can include severe hyperpyrexia, convulsion, rhabdomyolysis, acute renal failure, hepatocellular damage, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and refractory hypotension.18,19

Do any of these effects translate into prolonged hospital stay or consumption of resources among trauma patients? In a 6-month review of 461 methamphetamine-positive patients presenting to the emergency department for both medical and traumatic reasons, Richards et al20 reported that there was a significantly higher use of ambulance transport and admission rates for methamphetamine-positive patients vs those not using methamphetamine. However, this study considered all methamphetamine-positive patients, including medical patients.

Most reports of the effect of drug use on trauma patients focus on patients with life-threatening injuries. Cornwell et al21 reported on 516 critically injured patients who had urine toxicology screens performed and were admitted to one urban level I trauma center during a 9-month period. Three hundred seventy-one patients tested positive for drugs, alcohol, or both and were compared with a control group matched for injury severity and age. They found that patterns of drug use or nonuse did not correlate with severity of injury, mode of transport (emergency medical service vs civilian), presence of shock on admission, need for surgery, ICU admission, LOS, or hospital course. However, they included all positive drug screens regardless of which substance tested positive. Cocaine was the most prevalent drug that tested positive. Although methamphetamine has a clinical effect similar to that of cocaine, there are major differences in their basic mechanisms of action.

Likewise, Madan et al11 reported on a 6-month review of 557 patients sustaining life-threatening injuries seen in a large level I trauma center. Urine toxicology screening was performed on 450 patients, with 70% testing positive. They found no difference in hospital days or mortality between patients with positive and negative screens.

In a prospective, age-matched, controlled study during a 20-month period, Loiselle et al10 reviewed data from 134 adolescent trauma patients admitted to a level I pediatric trauma center. Sixty-five patients had urine toxicology screens performed and 22 (34%) tested positive for drugs of abuse. Similar to the study by Cornwell et al,21 cocaine was the most prevalent drug found. There were no significant differences between patients with positive and negative toxicology screen results with regard to sex, Glasgow Coma Scale score, trauma score, mean hospital stay, time of arrival, or need for operative intervention.

Few studies have specifically addressed the problem of methamphetamine toxicity. In a 5-year review of patients admitted to one level I trauma center, Schermer and Wisner8 reported on trauma patients who tested positive for methamphetamine. Similar to our study, they found that patients positive for methamphetamine were most likely to be injured in motor vehicle collisions (Table 1). In contrast to our study, they found that hospital resources were not increased on the basis of the use of methamphetamine. However, to assess the use of hospital resources, they looked at the need for emergency surgery and ICU admission. In our study, we looked at hospital LOS and hospital charges as surrogates for hospital resources used and found a significant difference in those testing positive for methamphetamine.

Most studies reviewed failed to show a difference in LOS or ICU admission between patients with positive vs negative urine toxicology screen results. However, most, if not all, of the studies addressing this question focused on seriously injured patients. It stands to reason that in this population, the severity of injury will dictate the LOS, ICU utilization, and need for emergency surgery, as well as mortality and complication rates. In fact, Bast et al22 reported the results of a 5-year review of 2768 trauma patients who underwent drug screening. Of those patients, 414 (15.0%) had positive screens. Review of all available charts (n = 401) failed to identify any cases in which treatment was altered by a positive toxicology screen result.

Our study focused on patients who were minimally injured and would, therefore, normally require little, if any, care. Furthermore, we limited our analysis to patients who tested positive for methamphetamine because of the overwhelming prevalence of this drug in our state and its increasing prevalence in the United States as a whole. In this population, we found that there was significantly longer LOS and increased hospital charges (Table 2). There was also a slightly higher rate of ICU admission and ICU LOS, although these failed to reach statistical significance (Table 2).

We believe that these results reflect the effect of the drug on these patients as opposed to patients who are seriously injured. In the critically injured, care is dictated by the location and severity of the injury, while the drug effect is likely of secondary concern, if it is a concern at all. However, in the minimally injured patient, the drug effect becomes more important. The treating physician must now search for and rule out other causes of, for instance, tachycardia, diaphoresis, or altered sensorium. Likewise, in the presence of drug use, the physical examination findings are unreliable, making radiographic studies and/or additional observation necessary. These patients must often be admitted for no other reason than to allow clearance of the cervical spine after the drug's "high" or "low" has worn off. This results in an increased burden on the resources of the trauma system. In our state, there has recently been an aggressive campaign aimed at raising the public awareness of the effects of methamphetamine. Additional resources need to be allocated to prevention of methamphetamine use and to drug rehabilitation. It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect. We believe that efforts like this are an important part of decreasing the use of methamphetamine and, if successful, should relieve some of the burden that these drugs are placing on our trauma system and, undoubtedly, other trauma systems around the country.

Correspondence: Gail T. Tominaga, MD, Trauma Services, The Queen's Medical Center, 1301 Punchbowl St, Honolulu, HI 96822 (gtominaga@queens.org).

Accepted for publication April 9, 2004.

This paper was presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Surgical Association; February 16, 2004; Maui, Hawaii; and is published after peer review and revision.

The opinions contained in this article are those of the authors only and do not reflect the opinions of The Queen's Medical Center, the US Army, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

Not Available, Hawaii faces big methamphetamine problem. Join Together Online; October 2002. Available at: http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,554779,00.html. Accessed January 30, 2004.
Gawin  FEllinwood Jr  EH Cocaine and other stimulants: actions, abuse and treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;3181173- 1182
PubMed Link to Article
Albertson  TEDerlet  RWVan Hoozen  BE Methamphetamine and the expanding complications of amphetamines. West J Med. 1999;170214- 219
PubMed
Derlet  RWHeischober  B Stimulant of the 1990s? West J Med. 1990;153625- 628
PubMed
Puder  KSKagan  DVMorgan  JP Illicit methamphetamine: analysis, synthesis, and availability [published correction appears in Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1989;15:353]. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1988;14463- 473
PubMed Link to Article
Not Available, In Hawaii meth kills more than alcohol. Join Together Online; February 2003. Available at: http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,561881,00.html. Accessed January 30, 2004.
Not Available, Methamphetamine: Abuse and Addiction. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Report Series; 2003. Available at: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchREports/methamph/methamph.html. Accessed January 30, 2004.
Schermer  CRWisner  DH Methamphetamine use in trauma patients: a population-based study. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189442- 449
PubMed Link to Article
Heischober  BMiller  MA Methamphetamine abuse in California. NIDA Res Monogr. 1991;11560- 71
PubMed
Loiselle  JMBaker  MDTempleton Jr  JMSchwartz  GDrott  H Substance abuse in adolescent trauma. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;221530- 1534
PubMed Link to Article
Madan  AKYu  KBeech  DJ Alcohol and drug use in victims of life-threatening trauma. J Trauma. 1999;47568- 571
PubMed Link to Article
Hurst  P Amphetamines and driving. Alcohol Drugs Driving. 1987;313- 16
Chiang  WKGoldfrank  LR Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies.  Norwalk, Conn Appleton & Lange1994;
Beebe  DKWalley  E Smokable methamphetamine ("ice"): an old drug in a different form. Am Fam Physician. 1995;51449- 453
PubMed
Furst  SRFallon  SPReznick  GNShah  PK Myocardial infarction after inhalation of methamphetamine. N Engl J Med. 1990;3231147- 1148
PubMed Link to Article
Nestor  TATamamoto  WIKam  THSchultz  T Crystal methamphetamine–induced acute pulmonary edema: a case report. Hawaii Med J. 1989;48457- 458460
PubMed
Sekine  HNagao  SKuribara  HNakahara  Y Behavioral effects of N-cyanomethylmethamphetamine, a product derived from smoking methamphetamine with tobacco in mice and rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1997;57167- 172
PubMed Link to Article
Chan  PChen  JHLee  MHDeng  JF Fatal and nonfatal methamphetamine intoxication in the intensive care unit. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1994;32147- 155
PubMed Link to Article
Sperling  LSHorowitz  JL Methamphetamine-induced choreoathetosis and rhabdomyolysis. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121986
PubMed Link to Article
Richards  JRBretz  SWJohnson  EBTurnipseed  SDBrofeldt  BTDerlet  RW Methamphetamine abuse and emergency department utilization. West J Med. 1999;170198- 202
PubMed
Cornwell III  EEBelzberg  HVelmahos  G  et al.  The prevalence and effect of alcohol and drug abuse on cohort-matched critically injured patients. Am Surg. 1998;64461- 465
PubMed
Bast  BRHelmer  SDHenson  SRRogers  MAShapiro  WMSmith  RS Limited utility of routine drug screening in trauma patients. South Med J. 2000;93397- 399
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

References

Not Available, Hawaii faces big methamphetamine problem. Join Together Online; October 2002. Available at: http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,554779,00.html. Accessed January 30, 2004.
Gawin  FEllinwood Jr  EH Cocaine and other stimulants: actions, abuse and treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;3181173- 1182
PubMed Link to Article
Albertson  TEDerlet  RWVan Hoozen  BE Methamphetamine and the expanding complications of amphetamines. West J Med. 1999;170214- 219
PubMed
Derlet  RWHeischober  B Stimulant of the 1990s? West J Med. 1990;153625- 628
PubMed
Puder  KSKagan  DVMorgan  JP Illicit methamphetamine: analysis, synthesis, and availability [published correction appears in Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1989;15:353]. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1988;14463- 473
PubMed Link to Article
Not Available, In Hawaii meth kills more than alcohol. Join Together Online; February 2003. Available at: http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,561881,00.html. Accessed January 30, 2004.
Not Available, Methamphetamine: Abuse and Addiction. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Report Series; 2003. Available at: http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchREports/methamph/methamph.html. Accessed January 30, 2004.
Schermer  CRWisner  DH Methamphetamine use in trauma patients: a population-based study. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189442- 449
PubMed Link to Article
Heischober  BMiller  MA Methamphetamine abuse in California. NIDA Res Monogr. 1991;11560- 71
PubMed
Loiselle  JMBaker  MDTempleton Jr  JMSchwartz  GDrott  H Substance abuse in adolescent trauma. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;221530- 1534
PubMed Link to Article
Madan  AKYu  KBeech  DJ Alcohol and drug use in victims of life-threatening trauma. J Trauma. 1999;47568- 571
PubMed Link to Article
Hurst  P Amphetamines and driving. Alcohol Drugs Driving. 1987;313- 16
Chiang  WKGoldfrank  LR Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies.  Norwalk, Conn Appleton & Lange1994;
Beebe  DKWalley  E Smokable methamphetamine ("ice"): an old drug in a different form. Am Fam Physician. 1995;51449- 453
PubMed
Furst  SRFallon  SPReznick  GNShah  PK Myocardial infarction after inhalation of methamphetamine. N Engl J Med. 1990;3231147- 1148
PubMed Link to Article
Nestor  TATamamoto  WIKam  THSchultz  T Crystal methamphetamine–induced acute pulmonary edema: a case report. Hawaii Med J. 1989;48457- 458460
PubMed
Sekine  HNagao  SKuribara  HNakahara  Y Behavioral effects of N-cyanomethylmethamphetamine, a product derived from smoking methamphetamine with tobacco in mice and rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1997;57167- 172
PubMed Link to Article
Chan  PChen  JHLee  MHDeng  JF Fatal and nonfatal methamphetamine intoxication in the intensive care unit. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1994;32147- 155
PubMed Link to Article
Sperling  LSHorowitz  JL Methamphetamine-induced choreoathetosis and rhabdomyolysis. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121986
PubMed Link to Article
Richards  JRBretz  SWJohnson  EBTurnipseed  SDBrofeldt  BTDerlet  RW Methamphetamine abuse and emergency department utilization. West J Med. 1999;170198- 202
PubMed
Cornwell III  EEBelzberg  HVelmahos  G  et al.  The prevalence and effect of alcohol and drug abuse on cohort-matched critically injured patients. Am Surg. 1998;64461- 465
PubMed
Bast  BRHelmer  SDHenson  SRRogers  MAShapiro  WMSmith  RS Limited utility of routine drug screening in trauma patients. South Med J. 2000;93397- 399
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 27

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles