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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of ophthalmology Vol. 8; no. 5; pp. 1043 - 1050
Main Authors Hu, Ai-Lian, Qiao, Li-Ya, Zhang, Ye, Cai, Xiao-Gu, Li, Lei, Wan, Xiu-Hua
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published China International Journal of Ophthalmology Press 01.10.2015
Press of International Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO PRESS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2222-3959
2227-4898
DOI10.3980/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