Does the efficacy of neurodynamic treatments depend on the presence and type of criteria used to define neural mechanosensitivity in spinally-referred leg pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Background It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. Objective To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on th...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | The South African journal of physiotherapy Ročník 78; číslo 1; s. 1627 - e10 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
AOSIS
2022
African Online Scientific Information Systems (Pty) Ltd t/a AOSIS |
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 0379-6175, 2410-8219, 2410-8219 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Background It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. Objective To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM. Method PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined. Results We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled. Conclusion The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions. Clinical implications Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain.BackgroundIt remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain.To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM.ObjectiveTo determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM.PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined.MethodPubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined.We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled.ResultsWe identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled.The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions.ConclusionThe nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions.Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests.Clinical implicationsNeural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests. Background: It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. Objective: To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM. Method: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined. Results: We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled. Conclusion: The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions. Clinical implications: Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests. Background It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. Objective To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM. Method PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NMdefinite, NMunclear, NMuntested and NMabsent. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined. Results We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NMdefinite, 16 NMunclear, 2 NMuntested, 0 NMabsent). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NMdefinite and NMunclear groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NMunclear but not NMdefinite groups. NMuntested studies could not be pooled. Conclusion The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions. Clinical implications Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests. Background It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. Objective To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM. Method PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NM[sub.definite], NM[sub.unclear], NM[sub.untested] and NM[sub.absent]. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined. Results We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NM[sub.definite], 16 NM[sub.unclear], 2 NM[sub.untested], 0 NM[sub.absent]). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NM[sub.definite] and NM[sub.unclear] groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NM[sub.unclear] but not NM[sub.definite] groups. NM[sub.untested] studies could not be pooled. Conclusion The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions. Clinical implications Neural mobilisations seem beneficial to reduce pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain independent of the criteria used to interpret neurodynamic tests. It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg pain. To determine whether the efficacy of neural mobilisations in patients with spinally referred leg pain depends on the presence and type of criteria used to define NM. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Science Direct were searched from 1980 to March 2020. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of neural mobilisations on pain and disability in spinally referred leg pain were included. Studies were grouped according to the certainty of NM into NM[sub.definite], NM[sub.unclear], NM[sub.untested] and NM[sub.absent]. Effects on pain and disability and subgroup differences were examined. We identified 21 studies in 914 patients (3 NM[sub.definite], 16 NM[sub.unclear], 2 NM[sub.untested], 0 NM[sub.absent]). Meta-analysis revealed medium to large effect sizes on pain for neurodynamic compared to control interventions in NM[sub.definite] and NM[sub.unclear] groups. For disability, neurodynamic interventions had medium to large effects in NM[sub.unclear] but not NM[sub.definite] groups. NM[sub.untested] studies could not be pooled. The nonexistence of studies in patients with negative neurodynamic tests prevents inferences whether neural mobilisations are effective in the absence of NM. The criteria used to define NM may not impact substantially on the efficacy of neural mobilisations. The mostly high risk of bias and heterogeneity prevents firm conclusions. |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Ainslie, Timothy R. Basson, Cato A. Murape, Tawanda Schmid, Annina B. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Tawanda orcidid: 0000-0001-5952-8617 surname: Murape fullname: Murape, Tawanda – sequence: 2 givenname: Timothy R. orcidid: 0000-0002-2670-2639 surname: Ainslie fullname: Ainslie, Timothy R. – sequence: 3 givenname: Cato A. orcidid: 0000-0002-0387-4614 surname: Basson fullname: Basson, Cato A. – sequence: 4 givenname: Annina B. orcidid: 0000-0001-7759-0211 surname: Schmid fullname: Schmid, Annina B. |
| BookMark | eNp9ks1u1DAURiNUREvpmq0lJMRmprYzzs8GVBUKlSqxgbV1Y1_PeJTYwfYMygvyXDgzVcUghLKIdPOdkxvne1mcOe-wKF4zulwxyq8jbMflvm4sW7KK18-KC57ni4az9qy4oGXdLipWi_PiKsYtpZRxUVeNeFGcl6Ita9ryi-LXR4-RpA0SNMYqUBPxhjjcBa8nB4NVJAWENKBLkWgc0Wni3YEYA0Z0CgnkWZpGnFEVbMJggewi5qnPjLEOD0royYBqA85nLtpk9zZNxDoSR-ug76dFQIMhZLDHNRnBug_khsQpJhwg5V0C7i3-PLxwwAQLyNgUbXxVPDfQR7x6vF8W3-8-fbv9snj4-vn-9uZhoURbp0UnGFSrruu0qaEFYWgtOkFXDa5EqalhhpumZB0q0ymo69pUzDSsFLzqao5NeVncH73aw1aOwQ4QJunBysPAh7WEkBftURqtV1RoYxSKFZbYiqbTXDSAmivBIbveH13jrhtQq3zC-YROpKdPnN3Itd_LthRUlDQL3j0Kgv-xw5jkYKPCvgeHfhclr9q2FW1VzdE3x-ga8mrWGZ-Nao7Lmzr3ohSs4Tm1_EcqXxpzEXL5jM3zE-DtH8AGoU-b6Ptdst7F0-D1MaiCjzH_5afPZFTOZZZzmeWhzHIucybEX4SyCWZx3sn2_-HujlyELvcu5QDmY5SblMYoN7qXuX86bzs_Y1RwKnGrnjQye-Ag-g1qDBng |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_024_07713_6 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | COPYRIGHT 2022 African Online Scientific Information Systems (Pty) Ltd t/a AOSIS 2022. The Authors. 2022. The Authors 2022 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: COPYRIGHT 2022 African Online Scientific Information Systems (Pty) Ltd t/a AOSIS – notice: 2022. The Authors. – notice: 2022. The Authors 2022 |
| DBID | AEIZH JRA AAYXX CITATION 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1627 |
| DatabaseName | Sabinet:Open Access Sabinet African Journals Open Access Collection CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic CrossRef |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Physical Therapy |
| EISSN | 2410-8219 |
| EndPage | e10 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_fdd405dffce54e3e958bd258aed2c52a PMC9350530 A712535182 10_4102_sajp_v78i1_1627 https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-sajp_v78_i1_a1627 |
| GroupedDBID | 04C 1RG 5VS 6PF 6SC AAFWJ AAWTL ABDBF ACUHS ADBBV AEIZH AFPKN ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ANHLU AOIJS BAIFH BBTPI BCNDV BMSDO DIK EIHBH FRP GROUPED_DOAJ HYE IAO IEA IHR IHW INH INR IPT ITC JRA KQ8 OK1 PGMZT PV9 RFP RPM RZL SCVUT X4Q AAYXX CITATION 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c597t-b51a64bbbdf7a9a5f075b5048e453d0f1f2f831becfbca777f61f813526b72e83 |
| IEDL.DBID | DOA |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 2 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000837222200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 0379-6175 2410-8219 |
| IngestDate | Mon Nov 10 04:33:13 EST 2025 Thu Nov 27 06:11:23 EST 2025 Wed Oct 01 12:03:21 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 13:11:43 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 10:04:40 EST 2025 Thu May 22 21:20:47 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 04:13:39 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:31:53 EST 2025 Thu Nov 27 13:21:45 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Language | English |
| License | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c597t-b51a64bbbdf7a9a5f075b5048e453d0f1f2f831becfbca777f61f813526b72e83 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-5952-8617 0000-0002-2670-2639 0000-0001-7759-0211 0000-0002-0387-4614 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/fdd405dffce54e3e958bd258aed2c52a |
| PMID | 35937092 |
| PQID | 2699959660 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_fdd405dffce54e3e958bd258aed2c52a pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9350530 proquest_miscellaneous_2699959660 gale_infotracmisc_A712535182 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A712535182 gale_healthsolutions_A712535182 crossref_primary_10_4102_sajp_v78i1_1627 crossref_citationtrail_10_4102_sajp_v78i1_1627 sabinet_saepub_https_hdl_handle_net_10520_ejc_sajp_v78_i1_a1627 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2022-00-00 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-01-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – year: 2022 text: 2022-00-00 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationTitle | The South African journal of physiotherapy |
| PublicationYear | 2022 |
| Publisher | AOSIS African Online Scientific Information Systems (Pty) Ltd t/a AOSIS |
| Publisher_xml | – name: AOSIS – name: African Online Scientific Information Systems (Pty) Ltd t/a AOSIS |
| SSID | ssj0001257685 |
| Score | 2.1826699 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Background It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally... Background: It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally... It remains unclear whether definite neural mechanosensitivity (NM) is required for neural mobilisations to be beneficial in people with spinally referred leg... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale crossref sabinet |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Enrichment Source Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | 1627 |
| SubjectTerms | Backache Care and treatment Medical research Medicine, Experimental nerve-related pain neural mobilisation neurodynamics Pain Review sciatica slump spinally referred leg pain straight leg raise |
| Title | Does the efficacy of neurodynamic treatments depend on the presence and type of criteria used to define neural mechanosensitivity in spinally-referred leg pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| URI | https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-sajp_v78_i1_a1627 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2699959660 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9350530 https://doaj.org/article/fdd405dffce54e3e958bd258aed2c52a |
| Volume | 78 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000837222200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 2410-8219 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0001257685 issn: 0379-6175 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20020101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELagAokLb0SgFCMhwSXbzdP2qVoeFQdU9VCkvVmOHzTVNok22Ur9g_wuZux02ahCXLjano135tN4bM18Q8h7iNnnrtRZ7HKex3De8liVcxY7kSuh_I3EU-Z_ZycnfLkUpzutvjAnLNADB8UdOmMgpjDOaVvkNrOi4JVJC66sSXWR-tAIop6dy1R4XcE42ucvZkxgHVwReH1yOFAPe3XRza4Yr5NZUmI_mZ0jyTP33_bPt3Mm7yMFbmOHnePo-DF5OMaRdBH2_4Tcsc1T8uh01Do9C2QBz8ivL63tKUR51CJZhNLXtHXUs1ia0IyebnPNexpa4tK28RKdL03SlioYw7daFAUvg_TOim56C6MtyDjYoP9J-PClxVLitse8-NCYgtYN7TtsvrW6jn1XkzUIruxP2qm6OaIL-odNmoZKGv_BSzuoWI2cKc_Jj-OvZ5-_xWPvhljDFWWIqyJRZV5VlXEMjF44CE2qAtyFzYvMzF3iUsezBBDkKq0YY65MHE-Qrb9iqeXZC7LXtI19SajLjBJp6iqlRW5SpyBm40ZAZKF4KayJyOzGfFKPxObYX2Ml4YKD9pZob-ntLdHeEfm4FegCp8ffl35CPGyXIRm3HwCIyhGi8l8QjchbRJMMla1blyIXDGCaFXDDi8gHvwKdCmwdwBBqI0ABSM81Wbk_WQnOQE-m390gVuIUZtA1tt30Mi0FUsuV5TwibALlyZ-bzjT1uWccFxkEyhlIHo2gBz1hzaYvCuvluVnJQAoicS7B3CppL_RWmxLUqVCfr_6HPl-TBykWofiHsH2yN6w39g25p6-Gul8fkLtsyQ-8O_gN3wJtew |
| linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| 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=Does+the+efficacy+of+neurodynamic+treatments+depend+on+the+presence+and+type+of+criteria+used+to+define+neural+mechanosensitivity+in+spinally-referred+leg+pain%3F+A+systematic+review+and+meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The+South+African+journal+of+physiotherapy&rft.au=Murape%2C+Tawanda&rft.au=Ainslie%2C+Timothy+R&rft.au=Basson%2C+Cato+A&rft.au=Schmid%2C+Annina+B&rft.date=2022&rft.pub=African+Online+Scientific+Information+Systems+%28Pty%29+Ltd+t%2Fa+AOSIS&rft.issn=0379-6175&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.4102%2Fsajp.v78i1.1627&rft.externalDocID=A712535182 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0379-6175&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0379-6175&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0379-6175&client=summon |