Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure
Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Jg. 6; S. CD012097 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
England
25.06.2018
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| Online-Zugang: | Weitere Angaben |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.
To compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.
Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.
We did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).
This review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence). |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.BACKGROUNDCorneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.To compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).OBJECTIVESTo compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.SELECTION CRITERIAWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.We did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).MAIN RESULTSWe did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).This review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThis review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence). Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide. To compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure. Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I. We did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence). This review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence). |
| Author | Stuart, Alastair J Romano, Vito Shortt, Alex J Virgili, Gianni |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Alastair J surname: Stuart fullname: Stuart, Alastair J organization: Ophthalmology, Queen Mary's Hospital, Frognal Avenue, Sidcup, Kent, UK, DA14 6LT – sequence: 2 givenname: Vito surname: Romano fullname: Romano, Vito – sequence: 3 givenname: Gianni surname: Virgili fullname: Virgili, Gianni – sequence: 4 givenname: Alex J surname: Shortt fullname: Shortt, Alex J |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29940078$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kMtOwzAQRS1URGnhFyrvKIsUP-LYXlZteYgiFoDELnKTMQTywnaQ-it8LUEUqStWM9Kce6S5IzSomxoQmlAyo4SwCxongiqhZosloYxoOWu7DTtAx_1BR7Hmz4O9fYhG3r8RwjWl6ggNmdYxIVIdo68l-AwqCGceV1BtnKkBQ5034RXKwpT4HZwJTVsaH7Z4urxb3Z7jT3C-83gv6oMr2raoX7DpQlOZAPl_lof5j8Y2DmeNq6EH9mFrirJzcIIOrSk9nO7mGD1drh4X19H6_upmMV9HGVeKRUrZBLSW1FhuhBG5BEu5ShS3RFvLEiK5ZIwrKTLOY8sFZRaINoRJq6lgYzT99bau-ejAh7Qq-sfKsq-i6XzKiNBCUsVIj052aLepIE9bV1TGbdO_Ptk3uHp82w |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjophth_2020_000679 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40135_019_00197_x crossref_primary_10_1155_2021_6644114 crossref_primary_10_1080_08820538_2022_2094713 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_1315299 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10237_019_01156_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s40662_020_00191_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10792_021_01817_x crossref_primary_10_5500_wjt_v15_i2_102507 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11845_020_02340_1 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_22223_y crossref_primary_10_1136_bjophthalmol_2020_317608 crossref_primary_10_1111_aos_15691 crossref_primary_10_1111_ceo_14089 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10792_024_03329_w crossref_primary_10_1080_17469899_2024_2305433 crossref_primary_10_1080_02713683_2021_1892150 crossref_primary_10_1159_000533701 crossref_primary_10_3928_1081597X_20201208_01 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2022_857200 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00347_025_02214_w crossref_primary_10_1136_bjophthalmol_2019_315180 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2558_2583 crossref_primary_10_26442_20751753_2024_7_202966 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2022_868533 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10792_021_02176_3 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_33639 crossref_primary_10_1136_bjophthalmol_2020_316705 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_072333 crossref_primary_10_1111_aos_15202 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.CD012097.pub2 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 29940078 |
| Genre | Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3882-88f6e9971af3a5a5d7ef138683f09ff260737223875c334f3512fe09a027f9152 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Sun Nov 09 09:53:48 EST 2025 Tue Jun 24 01:32:05 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3882-88f6e9971af3a5a5d7ef138683f09ff260737223875c334f3512fe09a027f9152 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012097.pub2/pdf/full |
| PMID | 29940078 |
| PQID | 2059571820 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2059571820 pubmed_primary_29940078 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-06-25 20180625 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-06-25 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2018 text: 2018-06-25 day: 25 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.4865515 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | CD012097 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Cell Count Corneal Diseases - surgery Corneal Transplantation Descemet Membrane - surgery Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty - adverse effects Endothelial Cells - cytology Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy - surgery Humans Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Postoperative Complications - etiology Visual Acuity |
| Title | Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29940078 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2059571820 |
| Volume | 6 |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1bS8MwFA7qRHzxfpk3IgjqQ3VtmjV5krELgm4MVOhbydpEhq6dthP8K_5az2k7Lw-K4EufmtAmJ-d8J-fyEXIUgkkHO-BYLpgzC7SfsZTUtqVg_yNHYXuZvFD42uv1hO_LfnnhlpZplVOdmCvqKAnxjhycdC65h-3GL8ZPFrJGYXS1pNCYJRUGUAbl3PM_oggMDrIoqouQSY350wrhmnNuIwe44OKs2crLRz38fednmJmbm87yfz90hSyVQJM2CslYJTM6XiML3TKUvk7eWtjIaaSz45SO9Aic5lhTHUdYkfUIQkkfsN1yMgZ0nb3Sk1a3fXVKMYdjktIvQ5H2A1s83FM1yRKAvzr6bZabBk4DQJmC1xsDSP32slFDzJLfIHed9m3z0iqJGqyQIUIXwtS1lJ6tDFNc8cjTxmaiLpipSWPAZUIyHAAHHg8Zcw0DlGF0TSrwiY0EBLFJ5uIk1tuEChApWw64jqR0XWVExOsDmEoxDubctqvkcLrqARwEjG7A8iSTNPhc9yrZKrYuGBcdOwKwucj_Lnb-MHqXLAIoEpgO5vA9UjGgBvQ-mQ9fsmH6fJBLGDx7_e47fTjbZA |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Descemet%27s+membrane+endothelial+keratoplasty+%28DMEK%29+versus+Descemet%27s+stripping+automated+endothelial+keratoplasty+%28DSAEK%29+for+corneal+endothelial+failure&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Stuart%2C+Alastair+J&rft.au=Romano%2C+Vito&rft.au=Virgili%2C+Gianni&rft.au=Shortt%2C+Alex+J&rft.date=2018-06-25&rft.issn=1469-493X&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=6&rft.spage=CD012097&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.CD012097.pub2&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |