Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT.

APPENDICITIS CORE OUTCOME SET FEASIBILITY TRIAL NON-OPERATIVE TREATMENT PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT QUALITATIVE RESEARCH SURGERY

Journal

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2021
Historique:
entrez: 25 2 2021
pubmed: 26 2 2021
medline: 26 10 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking. The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set. This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England. Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set. Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial. Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews. Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol. Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time. A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres. Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or ‘feasible’). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things – or ‘outcomes’ – we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.
DESIGN
This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set.
SETTING
This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England.
PARTICIPANTS
Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial.
DATA SOURCES
Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews.
RESULTS
Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol.
LIMITATIONS
Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time.
CONCLUSIONS
A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres.
FUTURE WORK
Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or ‘feasible’). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things – or ‘outcomes’ – we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or ‘feasible’). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things – or ‘outcomes’ – we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33630732
doi: 10.3310/hta25100
pmc: PMC7958256
doi:

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN15830435']

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-192

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 14/192/90
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

J Pediatr Surg. 2018 Sep;53(9):1849-1854
pubmed: 29395151
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2018 Sep 21;2(1):e000347
pubmed: 30276343
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2018 Feb;28(1):18-21
pubmed: 29017194
Arch Dis Child. 2017 Dec;102(12):1143-1151
pubmed: 28784616
Br J Surg. 2020 Jul;107(8):1013-1022
pubmed: 32181505
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Pediatr Neonatol. 2017 Jun;58(3):223-228
pubmed: 27477876
Trials. 2012 Aug 06;13:132
pubmed: 22867278
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 21;6(12):e013299
pubmed: 28003294
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):395-400
pubmed: 21194891
Surgery. 2011 Oct;150(4):673-83
pubmed: 22000179
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2017 May 18;1(1):
pubmed: 29637088
Br J Surg. 1995 Feb;82(2):166-9
pubmed: 7749676
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Jul;70(1):1-11.e9
pubmed: 27974169
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2017 Aug 11;1(1):e000151
pubmed: 29637158
J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Aug;219(2):272-9
pubmed: 24951281
Radiology. 2002 Aug;224(2):325-32
pubmed: 12147823
Lancet. 2004 Aug 28-Sep 3;364(9436):803-11
pubmed: 15337409
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;67(8):912-20
pubmed: 24811157
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Aug;9(4):481-8
pubmed: 18687030
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Oct 9;:
pubmed: 29103784
PLoS Med. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447
pubmed: 29145404
Health Econ. 2007 May;16(5):531-6
pubmed: 17001749
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Dec;51(12):1952-1956
pubmed: 27692345
BMJ. 2002 Oct 5;325(7367):766-70
pubmed: 12364308
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012 Jul;13(4):387-92
pubmed: 22198813
PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 25;8(1):e1000393
pubmed: 21283604
Ann Emerg Med. 2000 Jul;36(1):39-51
pubmed: 10874234
J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jul;49(7):1116-21
pubmed: 24952800
World J Surg. 2006 Jun;30(6):1033-7
pubmed: 16736333
Eur J Pediatr. 2019 Feb;178(2):235-242
pubmed: 30421265
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 May 1;9(3):157-69
pubmed: 21506622
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Dig Surg. 2011;28(3):210-21
pubmed: 21540609
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;67(7):745-53
pubmed: 24582946
BMJ. 2014 Dec 09;349:g6870
pubmed: 25491195
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 29;7(9):e016871
pubmed: 28965097
Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449
pubmed: 27618914
Ann Surg. 2015 Jan;261(1):67-71
pubmed: 25072441
Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Jul 08;2:25
pubmed: 29507761
Br J Surg. 2009 May;96(5):473-81
pubmed: 19358184
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Feb;20(10):xxiii-xxix, 1-201
pubmed: 26867046
Lancet. 2011 May 7;377(9777):1573-9
pubmed: 21550483
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2018 Dec 4;16(1):76
pubmed: 30514320
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1092-9
pubmed: 23244812
PLoS Med. 2016 Nov 29;13(11):e1002187
pubmed: 27898680
Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1105-13
pubmed: 19693703
Eur Urol. 2017 Nov;72(5):789-798
pubmed: 28578829
Health Econ. 1993 Dec;2(4):313-22
pubmed: 8142993
J Psychosom Res. 2001 Feb;50(2):69-76
pubmed: 11274663
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Nov;50(11):1893-7
pubmed: 26259556
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Aug 1;171(8):740-746
pubmed: 28628705
Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):
pubmed: 28759405
Ann Surg. 2015 Jul;262(1):68-73
pubmed: 24979608
Br J Surg. 2012 Mar;99(3):307-8
pubmed: 22237652
Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1360-71
pubmed: 26179938
Pediatrics. 2017 Mar;139(3):
pubmed: 28213607
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 2;8(2):e018581
pubmed: 29420230
Eur J Pediatr. 2017 Apr;176(4):521-527
pubmed: 28210834
Qual Health Res. 2010 Mar;20(3):340-51
pubmed: 20054040
Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2001 Oct;79(10):892-7
pubmed: 11697749
Surgery. 2015 May;157(5):916-23
pubmed: 25791031
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Jun;39(6):912-5; discussion 912-5
pubmed: 15185224
Trials. 2014 Aug 13;15:323
pubmed: 25115160
U S Armed Forces Med J. 1958 Nov;9(11):1545-57
pubmed: 13615898
BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2
pubmed: 10617534
Stat Med. 2006 May 30;25(10):1628-38
pubmed: 16639773
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 May;52(5):791-794
pubmed: 28173947
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 22;6(9):e012635
pubmed: 27660321
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
J Pediatr Surg. 2007 Aug;42(8):1439-42
pubmed: 17706511
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Mar;170(3):205-11
pubmed: 26619178
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Dec;80:8-15
pubmed: 27498376
Trials. 2009 Feb 06;10:9
pubmed: 19200379
BMJ. 2018 Nov 5;363:k3750
pubmed: 30560792
Trials. 2015 Jun 17;16:275
pubmed: 26081254
Trials. 2018 Mar 2;19(1):153
pubmed: 29499722
J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Jun;43(6):981-5
pubmed: 18558169
Med Care Res Rev. 2003 Sep;60(3 Suppl):74S-91S
pubmed: 15095547
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 16;9(6):e99111
pubmed: 24932522
J Pediatr Surg. 2014 May;49(5):782-5
pubmed: 24851770
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 15;7(11):e018145
pubmed: 29146647
Br J Surg. 2014 May;101(6):707-14
pubmed: 24700440
Trials. 2013 Dec 05;14:415
pubmed: 24304689
Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Aug 1;30(8):729-47
pubmed: 22788262
Trop Med Int Health. 2007 Apr;12(4):554-63
pubmed: 17445147
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(11):2018-28
pubmed: 19364625
Pediatr Surg Int. 2004 Apr;20(4):238-42
pubmed: 15103492
Trials. 2014 Jan 06;15:5
pubmed: 24393291
PLoS Med. 2016 Aug 09;13(8):e1002071
pubmed: 27505051
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Jun 25;13:87
pubmed: 26108625
Trials. 2017 Jun 20;18(Suppl 3):280
pubmed: 28681707
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Jun;51(6):908-11
pubmed: 27018085
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 03;(12):MR000032
pubmed: 24297482
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(3):175-81
pubmed: 16309335
Health Expect. 2018 Oct;21(5):899-908
pubmed: 29654644
Health Econ. 2003 Aug;12(8):697-702
pubmed: 12898666
Trials. 2016 Jun 08;17(1):283
pubmed: 27278130
J Commun. 2012 Oct;62(5):851-868
pubmed: 26405350
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Jan;17(1):1-2
pubmed: 22294719
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Sep;50(9):1566-8
pubmed: 26341885
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Nov;240:112543
pubmed: 31586777
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Jan;51(1):111-6
pubmed: 26547287
JAMA Surg. 2016 May 1;151(5):408-15
pubmed: 26676711
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Mar;82(3):448-54
pubmed: 21111558
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449
J Pediatr Psychol. 2009 Aug;34(7):782-93
pubmed: 19064607
BMJ. 2012 Apr 05;344:e2156
pubmed: 22491789
Emerg Med J. 2005 Oct;22(10):683-5
pubmed: 16189026
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 8;17(1):163
pubmed: 29216831
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2019 Oct;12(4):434-438
pubmed: 30548102
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019 Jan;104(1):F76-F82
pubmed: 29540463
Trials. 2013 Jun 09;14:166
pubmed: 23758961
Trials. 2012 Jul 02;13:103
pubmed: 22747787
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Mar;15(15):1-116
pubmed: 21443838
Ann Emerg Med. 1986 May;15(5):557-64
pubmed: 3963537
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Aug;29(8):641-52
pubmed: 21604821
Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):875-86
pubmed: 20405245
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
pubmed: 22228729
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;64(10):1127-36
pubmed: 21477994
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Apr;20(32):1-172
pubmed: 27117505
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Sep;39(9):1316-20
pubmed: 15359383
Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129 Suppl 3:S146-52
pubmed: 22661761
Med Etika Bioet. 2002 Spring-Summer;9(1-2):12-9
pubmed: 16276663
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Mar;52(3):444-448
pubmed: 27612631
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;29(8):890-3
pubmed: 20627213
BMJ. 2015 May 08;350:h2147
pubmed: 25956159

Auteurs

Nigel J Hall (NJ)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Frances C Sherratt (FC)

Department of Health Services Research, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Simon Eaton (S)

University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Isabel Reading (I)

Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Erin Walker (E)

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Maria Chorozoglou (M)

Southampton Health Technology Assessment Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Lucy Beasant (L)

Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Wendy Wood (W)

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Research Design Service South Central, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Michael Stanton (M)

Department of Paediatric Surgery and Urology, Southampton Children's Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Harriet J Corbett (HJ)

Department of Paediatric Surgery, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.

Dean Rex (D)

Department of Paediatric Surgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Natalie Hutchings (N)

Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Elizabeth Dixon (E)

Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Simon Grist (S)

Patient and public involvement representative.

William Van't Hoff (WV)

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Esther Crawley (E)

Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Jane Blazeby (J)

Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Bridget Young (B)

Department of Health Services Research, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH