Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 12

 

Home  | About Us | Editors | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit Article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 
     


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 250-255

Drug utilization pattern in critical care unit in a tertiary care teaching hospital in India


1 Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, GMERS Medical College, Gotri, Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Date of Web Publication2-Jan-2014

Correspondence Address:
C B Tripathi
Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar - 364 001, Gujarat
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/2229-5151.124128

PMID: 24459622

Get Permissions

   Abstract 

Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the drug utilization pattern and pharmacoeconomic analysis in critical care unit (CCU).
Materials and Methods: Indoor case papers of patients admitted in CCU between January 2008 and December 2010 were analyzed for demographic variables; indications; duration of CCU stay; proportion of common drugs used. Use of antimicrobials was evaluated based on the culture report and empirical regimen used. Defined daily dose (DDD)/100 bed-days were calculated. Various World Health Organization prescribing indicators were evaluated. Cost of drugs was calculated from Indian Drug Review (2010).
Results: A total of 397 cases were evaluated with a mean age of 44.62 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.56-46.69). Average duration of CCU stay was 4.15 days (95% CI: 3.79-4.51). The average number of drugs prescribed per patient was 13.54 (95% CI: 13.05-14.04). Total drug utilization in terms of DDD/100 bed-days was 226.27. Metronidazole, cefotaxime, atropine, adrenaline, dopamine, dobutamine, deriphyllin, ranitidine, metoclopramide and furosemide were prescribed in more than 30% cases. Number of antimicrobials prescribed per patient was 2.50 (95% CI: 2.37-2.66). Cefotaxime + metronidazole (26.70%) were the most common empirical regimen used. Average cost of treatment per patient was Rs 3225.70 (95% CI: 2749.8-3701.6). Higher economic burden was noted among expired patients and admitted due to medical + surgical indication (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Poly-pharmacy and use of antimicrobials without culture report is a common problem in CCU.

Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance, critical care unit, drug utilization research, pharmacoeconomic, pharmacoepidemiology


How to cite this article:
Patel MK, Barvaliya MJ, Patel TK, Tripathi C B. Drug utilization pattern in critical care unit in a tertiary care teaching hospital in India. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2013;3:250-5

How to cite this URL:
Patel MK, Barvaliya MJ, Patel TK, Tripathi C B. Drug utilization pattern in critical care unit in a tertiary care teaching hospital in India. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci [serial online] 2013 [cited 2014 Aug 30];3:250-5. Available from: http://www.ijciis.org/text.asp?2013/3/4/250/124128


   Introduction Top


The marketing, distribution, prescription and use of drugs in a society, with special emphasis on resulting medical, social and economic consequences is known as drug utilization research. [1] It is an important tool to study the clinical use of drugs in populations and its impact on health-care system. [1],[2] The critical care unit (CCU) is a setting where the multiple medications are prescribed to patients. The costs of hospitalization and treatment are high in CCU as patients are seriously ill and often suffer from the chronic critical illnesses. [3] CCU services use higher economic resources due to frequent use of high priced drugs and antimicrobial agents. Due to availability of limited funds in developing countries, drugs should be prescribed rationally so that the available funds can be utilized optimally. [4] The CCU is considered as the epicenter of antimicrobial resistance and it is an important problem influencing patient outcomes. [5] Incidence of poor treatment response and adverse reactions increase due to critical conditions of patients and use of multiple medications with altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic conditions. Periodic evaluation of drug utilization in the CCU is necessary for optimization of health care system, proper use of resources and making prescription policy. [4]

The assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults is called defined daily dose (DDD). [6],[7] Use of DDD is an important tool to compare the drug utilization among different clinical setups within a country and between different countries. DDD/100 bed-days provide a rough estimate of drug consumption in hospital inpatients and it is a fixed unit of measurement independent of formulation and price. [6],[7] In the present study, we have evaluated the drug utilization pattern and calculated the DDD for the drugs used in CCU of a tertiary care hospital.


   Materials and Methods Top


A retrospective study was carried out, after the permission from Institutional Review Board, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India. Indoor case papers of the patients admitted in CCU between January 2008 and December 2010 were collected from the medical record section of Sir Takhtsinhji General Hospital, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India. Data were collected for age, gender, diagnosis, duration of CCU stay, laboratory investigations and treatment provided during the stay in CCU. Culture and sensitivity reports and adverse drug reaction if mentioned in case papers were also noted.

Data were analyzed for demographic variables; indication of admission in CCU and systems involved; duration of CCU stay; total number of drugs prescribed per patient; proportion of common group and particular drugs used; the total number of antimicrobials and inotropes used per patient; use of fixed dose combinations (FDCs); use of generic and brand drugs; use of oral and parenteral formulations; use of the five most costliest drugs; organisms isolated and their antimicrobial sensitivity and outcome of the patient. Total cost of drugs per patient was calculated from the Indian Drug Review (2010). Total cost of laboratory investigations per patient was calculated according to the price list of Bhavnagar Pathologist Association. The drugs were classified according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification based on their chemical, pharmacological and therapeutic properties. The drug utilization was measured in DDD/100 bed-days. [7]

DDD/100 bed-days were calculated using the following equation:



In our CCU, bed strength was 10 and average bed occupancy rate was 0.6 during the study period.

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as proportions and mean (95% confidence interval [CI]). Mostly descriptive statistics were used. Comparisons of the total number of drugs prescribed per patient; duration of CCU stay; and cost of total treatment, antimicrobials and inotropes per patient were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test between patients admitted with medical, surgical and medical + surgical indications. Same parameters were compared between survived and expired patients using Mann-Whitney U-test. Statistical comparison was performed by using GraphPad Instat 3.0 (trial version). GraphPad Software Inc. 7825 Fay Avenue, Suite 230 La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.


   Results Top


A total of 397 indoor case papers of CCU were scrutinized. 2 (0.5%) patients were below 12 years; 221 (55.67%) patients were between 12 and 49 years and 174 (43.83%) patients were above 49 years of age group. The mean age of admitted patients was 44.62 years (95% CI: 42.56-46.69 years). A total 246 (61.96%) patients were male and 151 (38.04%) were female. Total 278 (70.03%), 71 (17.88%) and 48 (12.09%) patients were admitted with medical, surgical and medical + surgical indications respectively. The common indications for the admission were septicemia (35.37%), head injury (32.39%), complicated acute abdomen (25.35%), cardiovascular emergencies (21.94%) and organophosphate poisoning (17.27%). Total 170 (42.82%), 119 (29.97%) and 108 (27.21%) patients had one, two and more than two system involvement respectively. Cardio vascular (37.28%) was the most commonly involved system followed by gastro intestinal (36.52%), central nervous system (31.49%), respiratory (24.69%), renal (20.91%), hematology (17.63%), endocrine (8.82%) and genitourinary (2.77%).

The average duration of CCU stay was 4.15 days (95% CI: 3.79-4.51 days). A total of 5377 drugs (86.57% parenteral and 9.60% oral formulations) were prescribed in all patients. Total 319 different drugs (54.23% generic and 7.21% FDCs) were used. The minimum and maximum number of drugs prescribed to a single patient was 2 and 28, respectively. The average number of drugs prescribed per patient was 13.54 (95% CI: 13.05-14.04). Total drug utilization in CCU during the study period in terms of DDD/100 bed-days was 226.27. Metronidazole, cefotaxime, atropine, adrenaline, dopamine, dobutamine, etofylline + theophylline hydrate, ranitidine, metoclopramide and furosemide were prescribed in more than 30% of patients. Ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, noradrenaline, hydrocortisone, aspirin and pantoprazole were used in 10-30% of patients. Utilization pattern of various drugs and DDD/100 bed-days has been shown in [Table 1]. The commonly prescribed FDCs are described in [Table 2]. Among all the prescribed drugs, 18.48% were antimicrobials and 11.94% were inotropes. The antimicrobials and inotropes were used in 375 (94.45%) and 285 (71.79%) patients respectively. The average number of antimicrobials prescribed per patient was 2.50 (95% CI: 2.37-2.66). The average number of antimicrobials prescribed was significantly higher in expired than survived patients (2.80 [95% CI: 2.61-2.30] vs. 1.84 [95% CI: 1.7-2.06]; P < 0.05). The average number of inotropes prescribed per patient was 1.62 (95% CI: 1.49-1.75). 49 different antimicrobials were used. Cefotaxime + metronidazole (26.70%), ceftriaxone + metronidazole (16.88%), cefotaxime + gentamicin (7.81%) and ceftriaxone + gentamicin (3.78%) were the commonly used empirical regimens. The antibiotic sensitivity testing was performed in 46 (12.27%) patients. A total of 20 organisms were isolated in 17 (36.95%) patients. Change in antibiotic was performed in 10 cases (58.82%) based on isolated organisms and their sensitivity pattern. Isolated organisms were Klebsiella (40%), Pseudomonas (20%),  Escherichia More Details coli (10%), Staphylococcus aureus (10%), Candida (10%), Proteus vulgaris (5%) and Acinobactum (5%). Among 50% cases, S. aureus was sensitive to penicillin, oxacillin, cefazoline, ciprofloxacin, roxithromycin, tobramycin, amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, chloramphenicol and rifampicin. The sensitivity pattern of Gram-negative organisms to various antimicrobials is shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Sensitivity pattern of Gram-negative organisms to various antimicrobial drugs

Click here to view
Table 1: Utilization pattern of various drugs in CCU, ATC code and DDD/100 bed-days

Click here to view
Table 2: Most commonly prescribed FDCs

Click here to view


The average total cost of treatment per patient was Rs. 3225.70 (95% CI: Rs. 2749.8-Rs. 3701.6). The average total cost of antimicrobial drugs per patient was Rs. 1363.92 (95% CI: Rs. 1056.3-Rs. 1671.6). The average total cost of inotropes per patient was Rs. 262.31 (95% CI: Rs. 223.32-Rs. 301.30). Human-albumin, meropenem, methylprednisolone, piperacillin + tazobactum and enoxaparin sodium were the most costly drugs used in CCU. The average total cost of laboratory investigations per patient was Rs. 1521.41 (95% CI: Rs. 1379.3-Rs. 1663.5). The total cost of treatment in medical + surgical indications was significantly higher than patients with medical and surgical indication alone (P < 0.05). The comparison of the total number of drugs administered per patient, duration of CCU stay, cost per patient for total drugs, antimicrobials and inotropes in medical, surgical and medical + surgical indications are shown in [Table 3]. Total 274 (69%) patients were expired. The mortality rate for patients admitted with medical, surgical and medical + surgical indications were 71.58%, 52.11% and 79.17%, respectively. The most common cause of mortality was septicemia (21.91%). Total number of drugs administered per patient, duration of CCU stay and total cost per patient for survived and expired patients are shown in [Table 4].
Table 3: Comparison of the total number of drugs, duration of CCU stay in days, total cost per patient, antimicrobials cost per patient and inotropes drugs cost per patient between patient admitted with medical, surgical and medical+surgical indications

Click here to view
Table 4: Comparison of the total number of drugs, duration of CCU stay in days, total cost per patient, antimicrobials cost per patient and inotropes drugs cost per patient between survived and expired cases

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


We evaluated 397 cases admitted in 10 bedded CCU of a tertiary care hospital.

Male preponderance (61.96%) is observed and male: female is in accordance with the previous reports. The average age is lesser than the previous reporting. [1],[4],[5],[8] Patients were admitted for medical and surgical indications due to unavailability of separate intensive care units in our hospital. The most common indication for admission septicemia is in contrast to previous studies, which had reported cancer, cardiovascular emergencies and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [1],[4],[9] Head injury (32.39%), complicated cases of acute abdomen (25.35%) and cardiovascular emergencies (21.94%) were the other causes for admission in accordance with the previous studies. [1],[9] Total 57.18% patients were having more than one illness, which is similar to other published report. [4] The average duration of CCU stay (4.15 days) is similar to Shankar et al. (2005) [4] and Yamashita et al. (2000) [10] and lower than the Shankar et al. (2010), [1] Curcio et al. (2011) [5] and Tavallaee et al. (2010). [8] Use of brand names (45.77%) and FDCs (7.21%) are comparatively lower in our study. [1],[3] However, use of parenteral drugs (86.57%) is higher than previous studies. [1],[4],[9] The average total number of drugs prescribed per patient is higher than the reported in other studies. [1],[3],[4],[9] Use of the total number of drugs and parenteral formulations may be related with the general condition of the admitted patients in different CCU settings. More critical patients were admitted in our CCU. Antimicrobial drugs (94.45%), antipeptic ulcer drugs (89.67%) and inotropes (71.79%) were the commonly utilized groups similar to John et al. [3] However, cardiovascular drugs were the commonly used therapeutic class in other studies. [9],[11],[12]

Aggressive use of antipeptic ulcer drugs was to prevent stress induced ulcer. Atropine was used in patients of organophosphate poisoning, as a premedication and for bradycardia in late stages of septic shock. In critical care setting, it does not prevent all episodes of bradycardia and vasodilation when used before intubation. [13],[14] Use of atropine is appropriate to counter bradycardia, cardiac hypo-oxygenation and hypoperfusion in septic shock. [13] Adrenaline was mainly used for cardiac resuscitation. Dopamine, dobutamine and noradrenaline were used in combination with intravenous fluids for the patients of septic and cardiogenic shock. They were used to restore cardiac output, tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Inotropes are mainly effective in early stages of shock. Their late application for a prolonged period may harm the patient. [15] The selection of individual inotropes is mainly empirical. There is no significant difference in mortality in patients of shock treated with dopamine and noradrenaline. However, use of dopamine is associated with cardiac arrhythmia. [16]

Cephalosporins (73.30%), metronidazole (55.67%) and penicillins were the most commonly prescribed antimicrobials similar to previous studies. [3],[4],[9],[10],[11] However, aminoglycosides, meropenom, fluoroquinolones and piperacillin + tazobactum were the most utilized antimicrobials in other setup. [1],[5],[17] In our study, linezolid, meropenam, vancomycin, netilmycin and tobramycin were used as second line antimicrobials. The most common isolated organisms in our study is Klebsiella. Other studies had reported Pseudomonas, [17],[18],[19] E. coli[1],[4],[20] and S. aureus. [10] Our study showed lower utilization of antibiotic sensitivity testing than Shalini et al. [21] It is difficult to suggest the empirical antimicrobials for admitted patients due to underutilization of antibiotic sensitivity testing. The antimicrobial combination form the different classes should be considered for the septicemia due to high mortality. The selection of initial appropriate antibiotic regimen is important for reducing the mortality. The empirical combination antibiotic regimen directed against Gram-negative bacteria (carbapenem plus aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone) reduces the initial inappropriate selection as compared to monotherapy alone. Amoniglycosides offer broader coverage than fluoroquinolones as combination agents for patients with this serious infection. [22] The combination of carbapenems and aminoglycosides can be preferred in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. [23] There is an urgent need to enhance the utilization of antibiotic sensitivity testing for the better selection of antimicrobials and reduction of the mortality. Avoiding the use of unnecessary antibiotics helps to improve patient outcomes. [24] In the present study, patients had spent approximately 40% of the total cost on antimicrobials. Preparation of antibiotic use policy helps in reduction in nosocomial infections and have a positive impact in the form of costs reductions. [25],[26] The average cost of treatment prescribed per patient [Rs. 3225.7 ($ 57.74)] is higher in comparison with two studies by Shankar et al. in Nepal. [1],[4] However, cost of treatment was lower than the Biswal et al. from India and Inan et al. from Turkey. [11],[17] Biswal et al. had performed a study in the advanced referral center of India. Difference in the mean cost of treatment in our study than other studies may be due to variation in type and severity of the admitted patient, indications for the admission, different prescribing pattern or change in currency differences of various countries. Patient with medical + surgical indications has spent more money on the overall treatment. This is because of the use of higher expenditure medications. They have also spent more money for the antimicrobials. The cost for the treatment, antimicrobials and inotropes are higher in expired patients. This is due to the higher number of drugs used and duration of CCU stay.

The overall reported mortality in our study is higher than previously published reports. [4],[9],[12] This may be because of a higher number of patients with septicemia, head injury, poisoning and unavailability of the separate intensive care units for medical and surgical patients.

This study has certain limitations. Being a retrospective nature it was not possible to assess the rationality and quality of prescriptions. However, it helps to create drug utilization database in a tertiary care teaching hospital of developing country lacking separate medical and surgical intensive care units. These data provides no direct link with the outcomes associated with the use of the various categories of drugs. Line of treatment and selection of drugs varied by the physician-to-physician and it provide no data for the same.


   Conclusion Top


In conclusion, antimicrobials and inotropes are frequently utilized drugs in CCU. Prescribing guideline is required to reduce the prevalent poly-pharmacy and to promote appropriate use of antimicrobial drugs based on the culture and sensitivity report.


   Acknowledgments Top


We are sincerely thankful to record medical officer Dr. Vijay S. Boricha and staff of medical record section of Sir Takhtsinhji General Hospital, Bhavnagar for their kind help in providing indoor case papers for this study.

 
   References Top

1.Shankar PR, Upadhyay DK, Subish P, Bhandari RB, Das B. Drug utilisation among older inpatients in a teaching hospital in Western Nepal. Singapore Med J 2010;51:28-34.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Sachdeva PD, Patel BG. Drug utilization studies - Scope and future perspectives. Int J Pharm Biol Res 2010;1:11-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.John LJ, Devi P, John J, Guido S. Drug utilization study of antimicrobial agents in medical intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2011;4:81-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Shankar PR, Partha P, Dubey AK, Mishra P, Deshpande VY. Intensive care unit drug utilization in a teaching hospital in Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2005;3:130-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Curcio DJ, On behaf of the Latin American antibiotic use in intensive care unit group. Antibiotic prescription in intensive care units in Latin America. Rev Argent Microbiol 2011;43:203-11.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC Classification and DDD Assignment. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC Index with DDDs. Oslo: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Tavallaee M, Fahimi F, Kiani S. Drug-use patterns in an intensive care unit of a hospital in Iran: An observational prospective study. Int J Pharm Pract 2010;18:370-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Paudel R, Palaian S, Giri B, Hom KC, Sah AK, Poudel A, et al. Clinical profile and drug utilization pattern in an intensive care unit of a teaching hospital in Western Nepal. Arch Pharm Pract 2011;2:163-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Yamashita SK, Louie M, Simor AE, Rachlis A. Microbiological surveillance and parenteral antibiotic use in a critical care unit. Can J Infect Dis 2000;11:107-11.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Biswal S, Mishra P, Malhotra S, Puri GD, Pandhi P. Drug utilization pattern in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital. J Clin Pharmacol 2006;46:945-51.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Smythe MA, Melendy S, Jahns B, Dmuchowski C. An exploratory analysis of medication utilization in a medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1993;21:1319-23.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Jones P, Dauger S, Peters MJ. Bradycardia during critical care intubation: Mechanisms, significance and atropine. Arch Dis Child 2012;97:139-44.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Fastle RK, Roback MG. Pediatric rapid sequence intubation: Incidence of reflex bradycardia and effects of pretreatment with atropine. Pediatr Emerg Care 2004;20:651-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Bangash MN, Kong ML, Pearse RM. Use of inotropes and vasopressor agents in critically ill patients. Br J Pharmacol 2012;165:2015-33.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, Madl C, Chochrad D, Aldecoa C, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 2010;362:779-89.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Inan D, Saba R, Gunseren F, Ongut G, Turhan O, Yalcin AN, et al. Daily antibiotic cost of nosocomial infections in a Turkish university hospital. BMC Infect Dis 2005;5:5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Bryce EA, Colby WD, Haket J, Poisson MW, Smith JA. Incidence and susceptibility of aerobic Gram-negative bacilli from 20 Canadian intensive care units: 1989-1993. Can J Infect Dis 1996;7:34-40.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Lockhart SR, Abramson MA, Beekmann SE, Gallagher G, Riedel S, Diekema DJ, et al. Antimicrobial resistance among Gram-negative bacilli causing infections in intensive care unit patients in the United States between 1993 and 2004. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:3352-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Zafar A. Prevalent nosocomial gram negative aerobic bacilli and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in intensive care unit. J Pak Med Assoc 1999;49:169-72.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Shalini S, Kranthi K, Gopalkrishna BK. The microbiological profile of nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit. J Clin Diagn Res 2010;4:3109-12.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Micek ST, Welch EC, Khan J, Pervez M, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, et al. Empiric combination antibiotic therapy is associated with improved outcome against sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria: A retrospective analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010;54:1742-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Díaz-Martín A, Martínez-González ML, Ferrer R, Ortiz-Leyba C, Piacentini E, Lopez-Pueyo MJ, et al. Antibiotic prescription patterns in the empiric therapy of severe sepsis: Combination of antimicrobials with different mechanisms of action reduces mortality. Crit Care 2012;16:R223. Available from: http://www.ccforum.com/content/16/6/R223. [Last accessed on 2013 May 19].  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Kollef MH. Optimizing antibiotic therapy in the intensive care unit setting. Crit Care 2001;5:189-95.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Geissler A, Gerbeaux P, Granier I, Blanc P, Facon K, Durand-Gasselin J. Rational use of antibiotics in the intensive care unit: Impact on microbial resistance and costs. Intensive Care Med 2003;29:49-54.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Blanc P, Von Elm BE, Geissler A, Granier I, Boussuges A, Durand Gasselin J. Economic impact of a rational use of antibiotics in intensive care. Intensive Care Med 1999;25:1407-12.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
   Acknowledgments
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed422    
    Printed8    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded92    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal