Reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system
To evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system. Thirty Chinese healthy adults (19 to 40 years old) meeting our inclusion criterion were enrolled in the study. After a basic eye examin...
Saved in:
Published in | International journal of ophthalmology Vol. 8; no. 5; pp. 1043 - 1050 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
China
International Journal of Ophthalmology Press
01.10.2015
Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS) |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2222-3959 2227-4898 |
DOI | 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.34 |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | To evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system.
Thirty Chinese healthy adults (19 to 40 years old) meeting our inclusion criterion were enrolled in the study. After a basic eye examination, two methods of optical quality measurement, based on subjective and objective best focuses were performed using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) with an artificial pupil diameter of 4.0 mm.
With each method, three consecutive measurements of the following parameters: the modulation transfer function cutoff frequency (MTFcutoff), the Strehl(2D) ratio, the OQAS values (OVs) at contrasts of 100%, 20%, 9% and the objective scatter index (OSI) were performed by an experienced examiner. The repeatability of each method was evaluated by the repeatability limit (RL) and the coefficient of repeatability (COR). Reproducibility of the two methods was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the 95% limits of agreement (Bland and Altman analysis). Thirty subjects, seven females and twenty three males, of whom 15 right eyes and 15 left eyes were selected randomly for recruitment in the study. The RLs (percentage) for the six parameters measured at objective focus and subjective focus ranged from 8.44% to 15.13% and 10.85% to 16.26%, respectively. The CORs for the two measurement methods ranged from 8.27% to 14.83% and 10.63% to 15.93%, respectively. With regard to reproducibility, the ICCs for the six parameters of OQAS ranged from 0.024 to 0.276. The 95% limits of agreement obtained for the six parameters (in comparison of the two methods) ranged from -0.57 to 42.18 (MTFcutoff), -0.01 to 0.23 (Strehl(2D) ratio), -0.02 to 1.40 (OV100%), -0.10 to 1.75 (OV20%), -0.14 to 1.80 (OV9%) and -1.46 to 0.18 (OSI).
Measurements provided by OQAS with either method showed a good repeatability. However, the results obtained from the two different measurement methods showed a poor reproducibility. These findings suggest that it might be best to evaluate patients' optical quality by OQAS using the best focus as chosen automatically by the instrument. |
---|---|
AbstractList | AIMTo evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system.METHODSThirty Chinese healthy adults (19 to 40 years old) meeting our inclusion criterion were enrolled in the study. After a basic eye examination, two methods of optical quality measurement, based on subjective and objective best focuses were performed using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) with an artificial pupil diameter of 4.0 mm.RESULTSWith each method, three consecutive measurements of the following parameters: the modulation transfer function cutoff frequency (MTFcutoff), the Strehl(2D) ratio, the OQAS values (OVs) at contrasts of 100%, 20%, 9% and the objective scatter index (OSI) were performed by an experienced examiner. The repeatability of each method was evaluated by the repeatability limit (RL) and the coefficient of repeatability (COR). Reproducibility of the two methods was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the 95% limits of agreement (Bland and Altman analysis). Thirty subjects, seven females and twenty three males, of whom 15 right eyes and 15 left eyes were selected randomly for recruitment in the study. The RLs (percentage) for the six parameters measured at objective focus and subjective focus ranged from 8.44% to 15.13% and 10.85% to 16.26%, respectively. The CORs for the two measurement methods ranged from 8.27% to 14.83% and 10.63% to 15.93%, respectively. With regard to reproducibility, the ICCs for the six parameters of OQAS ranged from 0.024 to 0.276. The 95% limits of agreement obtained for the six parameters (in comparison of the two methods) ranged from -0.57 to 42.18 (MTFcutoff), -0.01 to 0.23 (Strehl(2D) ratio), -0.02 to 1.40 (OV100%), -0.10 to 1.75 (OV20%), -0.14 to 1.80 (OV9%) and -1.46 to 0.18 (OSI).CONCLUSIONMeasurements provided by OQAS with either method showed a good repeatability. However, the results obtained from the two different measurement methods showed a poor reproducibility. These findings suggest that it might be best to evaluate patients' optical quality by OQAS using the best focus as chosen automatically by the instrument. AIM:To evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system.METHODS: Thirty Chinese healthy adults (19 to 40 years old) meeting our inclusion criterion were enrolled in the study. After a basic eye examination, two methods of optical quality measurement, based on subjective and objective best focuses were performed using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) with an artificial pupil diameter of 4.0 mm.RESULTS: With each method, three consecutive measurements of the following parameters:the modulation transfer function cutoff frequency (MTFcutoff), the Strehl2D ratio, the OQAS values (OVs) at contrasts of 100%, 20%, 9% and the objective scatter index (OSI) were performed by an experienced examiner. The repeatability of each method was evaluated by the repeatability limit (RL) and the coefficient of repeatability (COR). Reproducibility of the two methods was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the 95% limits of agreement (Bland and Altman analysis). Thirty subjects, seven females and twenty three males, of whom 15 right eyes and 15 left eyes were selected randomly for recruitment in the study. The RLs (percentage) for the six parameters measured at objective focus and subjective focus ranged from 8.44% to 15.13% and 10.85% to 16.26%, respectively. The CORs for the two measurement methods ranged from 8.27% to 14.83% and 10.63% to 15.93%, respectively. With regard to reproducibility, the ICCs for the six parameters of OQAS ranged from 0.024 to 0.276. The 95% limits of agreement obtained for the six parameters (in comparison of the two methods) ranged from -0.57 to 42.18 (MTFcutoff), -0.01 to 0.23 (Strehl2D ratio), -0.02 to 1.40 (OV100%), -0.10 to 1.75 (OV20%), -0.14 to 1.80 (OV9%) and -1.46 to 0.18 (OSI).CONCLUSION:Measurements provided by OQAS with either method showed a good repeatability. However, the results obtained from the two different measurement methods showed a poor reproducibility. These findings suggest that it might be best to evaluate patients’ optical quality by OQAS using the best focus as chosen automatically by the instrument. To evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system. Thirty Chinese healthy adults (19 to 40 years old) meeting our inclusion criterion were enrolled in the study. After a basic eye examination, two methods of optical quality measurement, based on subjective and objective best focuses were performed using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) with an artificial pupil diameter of 4.0 mm. With each method, three consecutive measurements of the following parameters: the modulation transfer function cutoff frequency (MTFcutoff), the Strehl(2D) ratio, the OQAS values (OVs) at contrasts of 100%, 20%, 9% and the objective scatter index (OSI) were performed by an experienced examiner. The repeatability of each method was evaluated by the repeatability limit (RL) and the coefficient of repeatability (COR). Reproducibility of the two methods was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the 95% limits of agreement (Bland and Altman analysis). Thirty subjects, seven females and twenty three males, of whom 15 right eyes and 15 left eyes were selected randomly for recruitment in the study. The RLs (percentage) for the six parameters measured at objective focus and subjective focus ranged from 8.44% to 15.13% and 10.85% to 16.26%, respectively. The CORs for the two measurement methods ranged from 8.27% to 14.83% and 10.63% to 15.93%, respectively. With regard to reproducibility, the ICCs for the six parameters of OQAS ranged from 0.024 to 0.276. The 95% limits of agreement obtained for the six parameters (in comparison of the two methods) ranged from -0.57 to 42.18 (MTFcutoff), -0.01 to 0.23 (Strehl(2D) ratio), -0.02 to 1.40 (OV100%), -0.10 to 1.75 (OV20%), -0.14 to 1.80 (OV9%) and -1.46 to 0.18 (OSI). Measurements provided by OQAS with either method showed a good repeatability. However, the results obtained from the two different measurement methods showed a poor reproducibility. These findings suggest that it might be best to evaluate patients' optical quality by OQAS using the best focus as chosen automatically by the instrument. |
Author | Cai, Xiao-Gu Hu, Ai-Lian Li, Lei Zhang, Ye Wan, Xiu-Hua Qiao, Li-Ya |
AuthorAffiliation | Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Ai-Lian surname: Hu fullname: Hu, Ai-Lian organization: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China – sequence: 2 givenname: Li-Ya surname: Qiao fullname: Qiao, Li-Ya organization: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China – sequence: 3 givenname: Ye surname: Zhang fullname: Zhang, Ye organization: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China – sequence: 4 givenname: Xiao-Gu surname: Cai fullname: Cai, Xiao-Gu organization: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China – sequence: 5 givenname: Lei surname: Li fullname: Li, Lei organization: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China – sequence: 6 givenname: Xiu-Hua surname: Wan fullname: Wan, Xiu-Hua organization: Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Vision Science Key Lab, Beijing 100730, China |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26558224$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNpVkVtr3TAMx83oWC_rVxiGvewlma-J_TIYZZdCYTC2Z-OL0vmQxKkdd5xvv_Sctqx6kfSX-AlJ5-hkTjMg9J6SlmtFPu7aWMrcss0arqVuGaGyJbLl4hU629S-EUqrk0N8bDlFl6XsyGadJJSIN-iUdVIqxsQZ-vsTlpxC9dHFMa57nAacljV6O-K7ag_SYrOdYIVc8AS21AwB2xUntwO_xnvAdg641OfUQVnxkHwtUHCcscUhVTdCs9hScNmXFaa36PVgxwKXj_4C_f765dfV9-bmx7frq883TWAdW5s-SM0peGkVCaF_2I-pnnOlOfitKLWixHviufOScFBcCsdgYKRTwKHjF-j6yA3J7syS42Tz3iQbzUFI-dbYvK07glHMOwKKBsKcoENQggrJBqYHKj0DurE-HVlLdRMED_Oa7fgC-rIyxz_mNt0b0XGiNdsAHx4BOd3V7UpmisXDONoZUi2G9pxJ3anuofXd_7Oehzx9jv8Dj82i0A |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | International Journal of Ophthalmology Press 2015 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: International Journal of Ophthalmology Press 2015 |
DBID | NPM 7X8 5PM DOA |
DOI | 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.34 |
DatabaseName | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals (WRLC) |
DatabaseTitle | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic PubMed |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: Acceso a contenido Full Text - Doaj url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 2227-4898 |
EndPage | 1050 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_82cb0e81d02b41fd841452f29f15c2e1 PMC4630992 26558224 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | 53G 5VR 5VS ABKZE AENEX AFUIB ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS CCEZO CHBEP CIEJG DIK FA0 GROUPED_DOAJ HYE IPNFZ NPM RIG RNS RPM 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-d262t-7d5931ec5a80dd7222728733893ec7d559810cc0c3bc503e8354b2ef2068e3e63 |
IEDL.DBID | DOA |
ISSN | 2222-3959 |
IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:31:28 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 14:05:50 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 05:32:36 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:06:50 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 5 |
Keywords | repeatability double-pass system optical quality reproducibility best focus |
Language | English |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-d262t-7d5931ec5a80dd7222728733893ec7d559810cc0c3bc503e8354b2ef2068e3e63 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/82cb0e81d02b41fd841452f29f15c2e1 |
PMID | 26558224 |
PQID | 1732596862 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 8 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_82cb0e81d02b41fd841452f29f15c2e1 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4630992 proquest_miscellaneous_1732596862 pubmed_primary_26558224 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2015-10-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-10-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2015 text: 2015-10-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | China |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: China |
PublicationTitle | International journal of ophthalmology |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Int J Ophthalmol |
PublicationYear | 2015 |
Publisher | International Journal of Ophthalmology Press Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS) |
Publisher_xml | – name: International Journal of Ophthalmology Press – name: Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS) |
References | 19714793 - J Refract Surg. 2009 Aug;25(8):689-98 19214132 - Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Mar;86(3):266-72 21615445 - Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011 Jul;31(4):330-8 20581726 - Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Sep;87(9):675-81 20117702 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Jan;36(1):28-33 18655986 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Aug;34(8):1345-52 1923336 - Optom Vis Sci. 1991 Aug;68(8):599-607 19422571 - Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009 May;29(3):370-4 21782090 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Aug;37(8):1481-7 19393880 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 May;35(5):825-32 19631130 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Aug;35(8):1415-23 16650666 - Ophthalmology. 2006 May;113(5):735-41.e1 9114507 - J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1997 May;14(5):961-71 12000960 - Nature. 2002 May 9;417(6885):174-6 16565413 - Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Apr;47(4):1710-6 15134474 - J Vis. 2004 Apr 16;4(4):272-80 12553541 - Optom Vis Sci. 2003 Jan;80(1):26-35 21326868 - PLoS One. 2011 Feb 04;6(2):e16823 10789425 - Vision Res. 1999 Oct;39(26):4309-23 21111306 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Dec;36(12):2048-55 6050153 - J Physiol. 1967 Sep;192(2):345-58 17702826 - Br J Anaesth. 2007 Sep;99(3):309-11 17720082 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Sep;33(9):1631-5 21083759 - Clin Exp Optom. 2011 Mar;94(2):223-9 13429434 - J Opt Soc Am. 1957 Jun;47(6):564-5 22022876 - Clin Exp Optom. 2012 Jan;95(1):60-5 |
References_xml | – reference: 12000960 - Nature. 2002 May 9;417(6885):174-6 – reference: 12553541 - Optom Vis Sci. 2003 Jan;80(1):26-35 – reference: 21083759 - Clin Exp Optom. 2011 Mar;94(2):223-9 – reference: 21615445 - Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011 Jul;31(4):330-8 – reference: 21111306 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Dec;36(12):2048-55 – reference: 19631130 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Aug;35(8):1415-23 – reference: 17720082 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Sep;33(9):1631-5 – reference: 17702826 - Br J Anaesth. 2007 Sep;99(3):309-11 – reference: 6050153 - J Physiol. 1967 Sep;192(2):345-58 – reference: 21326868 - PLoS One. 2011 Feb 04;6(2):e16823 – reference: 18655986 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Aug;34(8):1345-52 – reference: 13429434 - J Opt Soc Am. 1957 Jun;47(6):564-5 – reference: 20117702 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Jan;36(1):28-33 – reference: 19422571 - Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009 May;29(3):370-4 – reference: 19714793 - J Refract Surg. 2009 Aug;25(8):689-98 – reference: 20581726 - Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Sep;87(9):675-81 – reference: 16650666 - Ophthalmology. 2006 May;113(5):735-41.e1 – reference: 1923336 - Optom Vis Sci. 1991 Aug;68(8):599-607 – reference: 22022876 - Clin Exp Optom. 2012 Jan;95(1):60-5 – reference: 19214132 - Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Mar;86(3):266-72 – reference: 10789425 - Vision Res. 1999 Oct;39(26):4309-23 – reference: 19393880 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 May;35(5):825-32 – reference: 16565413 - Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Apr;47(4):1710-6 – reference: 15134474 - J Vis. 2004 Apr 16;4(4):272-80 – reference: 21782090 - J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Aug;37(8):1481-7 – reference: 9114507 - J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1997 May;14(5):961-71 |
SSID | ssj0000650104 |
Score | 2.1066742 |
Snippet | To evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass... AIMTo evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass... AIM:To evaluate intra-session repeatability and reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a... |
SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database |
StartPage | 1043 |
SubjectTerms | best focus Clinical Research double-pass system optical quality repeatability reproducibility |
Title | Reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26558224 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1732596862 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4630992 https://doaj.org/article/82cb0e81d02b41fd841452f29f15c2e1 |
Volume | 8 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1La9wwEBYlh9BL6SNpt4-gkFzdSCPJj2NbEkKhOSWQm9FjRBMae6nXhPz7aCxn2S2FXnq0ddCg0UjfSN98Yuw4hQxEZU0hEEKhnYXChhTuJkolI6KImSB7UZ5f6e_X5nrjqS_ihGV54DxwJzV4JzChKgFOyxhqLbWBCE2UxgNOiU_a8zaSqbwGG0o06GU5ILp6Y5pddkQpalOLk9spwD6vm4jhZUjAU-lZuv9vePNP2uTGPnT2kr2YAST_kg1_xZ5h95rt_pivyN-w-wSpJxXXTHt94H3k_XI6sea5gvKBk973HfFgBn6XzwgDtyveu9u8_HHbBT6M60-XDOSx9-OAA7_puOWhH90vLJYJevMsBr3Hrs5OL7-dF_PrCkWAElZFFUyjJHpjaxFCRTWxKXtSBGDQp0bT1FJ4L7xy3giFdELkACOIskaFpdpnO13f4TvGm-BkUMZJ75UGcE75qrQ6GK1DHSu7YF9pUNtlFtBoSdJ6-pEc3c6Obv_l6AU7fHJJm0KA7jVsh_04tLJSKYmjUpcFe5tdtO4KSmOIKLtg1ZbztmzZbulufk4y27pUCT7D-_9h_Af2nOZYZgF-ZDur3yN-Smhm5Q6mifsI1G_zRQ |
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=Reproducibility+of+optical+quality+parameters+measured+at+objective+and+subjective+best+focuses+in+a+double-pass+system&rft.jtitle=International+journal+of+ophthalmology&rft.au=Hu%2C+Ai-Lian&rft.au=Qiao%2C+Li-Ya&rft.au=Zhang%2C+Ye&rft.au=Cai%2C+Xiao-Gu&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.pub=International+Journal+of+Ophthalmology+Press&rft.issn=2222-3959&rft.eissn=2227-4898&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1043&rft.epage=1050&rft_id=info:doi/10.3980%2Fj.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.34&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26558224&rft.externalDocID=PMC4630992 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2222-3959&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2222-3959&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2222-3959&client=summon |