Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2002 Public health and medicolegal implications of sleep apnoeaCORRESPONDENCE: W. McNicholas, Dept of Respiratory Medicine, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. Fax: 35 312697949. E-mail: walter.mcnicholas@ucd.ie
In 1997, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) established a Task Force to examine the Public Health and Medicolegal Implications of the Sleep Apnoea Syndrome with particular reference to the impact of sleepiness on patient and public safety. The following report represents the outcome of several meetings and discussions of the Task Force membership and also includes a review of current European Regulations concerning driver licensing prepared by one of the members (J. Krieger). Definition of sleep apnoea syndrome Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is a condition characterised by repetitive obstruction of the upper airway, often resulting in oxygen desaturation and arousals from sleep. The principal daytime manifestation is excessive sleepiness but other symptoms such as unrefreshing sleep, poor concentration and fatigue are commonly reported. Early definitions of the syndrome were based on an apnoea frequency without reference to symptoms 2. However, as epidemiological data from many studies made it clear that apnoeas during sleep are very common in the general population, the definition of a clinical syndrome was revised to include certain symptoms, particularly daytime sleepiness. Hypopnoeas were described as events of shallow breathing causing oxygen desaturation, which have similar clinical significance as apnoeas 3, 4. In 1988, cases with hypopnoeas and no or few apnoeas were described, with clinical symptoms similar to OSAS 5. Subsequently, the disorder began to be referred to as the obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS). In 1992, Guilleminault et al. 6 described a series of patients that had typical symptoms of OSAS but who did not have obstructive apnoeas or hypopnoeas on polysomnography. It was suggested that these events, characterised by increasing negative oesophageal pressure during inspiration and terminating with an arousal, reflected an upper airways resistance syndrome 6. Central sleep apnoea is a much rarer form of sleep apnoea and may include particular forms of sleep apnoea such as Cheyne-Stokes breathing and high altitude periodic breathing. An important development in the definition of various sleep apnoea syndromes was the report of a Working Group of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, which laid out the clinical criteria necessary for the diagnosis of a clinically significant sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome and also proposed a grading of severity 7. This report was co-sponsored by the ERS and the Society was represented in this working group by two members of the present Task Force (W.T. McNicholas and P. Levy). In the report, OSAHS requires that the individual must fulfil criterion 1 or 2, plus criterion 3. 1) Excessive daytime sleepiness that is not better explained by other factors. 2) Two or more of the following that are not better explained by other factors: choking or gasping during sleep; recurrent awakenings from sleep; unrefreshing sleep; daytime fatigue; impaired concentration. 3) Overnight monitoring demonstrates five or more obstructed breathing events per hour during sleep. These events may include any combination of obstructive apnoeas, hypopnoeas or respiratory effort-related arousals. Epidemiology and clinical aspects
The International Classification of Sleep Disorders Manual contains codes (table 1
The failure to recognise clinically significant sleep apnoea is particularly unfortunate for a number of reasons. First, the condition carries a significant morbidity and mortality, and has been associated with an increased risk of hypertension, myocardial infarction and stroke, as discussed below, in addition to a significant risk of automobile accidents and injury in the workplace. Second, the condition is eminently treatable, and severe forms of the condition usually respond very well to the continued home use of nocturnal nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). Patients with severe sleep apnoea frequently have an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep during the daytime, which is a natural consequence of the gross sleep disruption resulting from repeated apnoeas during sleep (usually several hundred per night). OSAHS represents the most common organic cause of excessive daytime sleepiness presenting to sleep disorders clinics. The prevalence of OSAHS is highest among males aged 4059 yrs, being 48%, and is less common among females and those in the younger and older age groups.
There have been a considerable number of studies that have addressed the prevalence of OSAHS, and these are summarised in table 2
One of the most comprehensive studies of OSAHS prevalence to date is the Wisconsin cohort study 7, which studied employed males and females aged 3060 yrs by means of full polysomnography. While 9% of females and 24% of males were found to have an apnoea index (Al) >5·h1, this estimate of prevalence fell to 2% of females and 4% of males when an AI >5 was combined with symptomatic daytime sleepiness. These findings underline the importance of not viewing OSAHS in terms of AI or AHI alone. In the subgroup of patients aged 5060 yrs, 4% of females and 9% of males were found to have an AI >15. In Spain 21 the prevalence of males having an AHI >5 was 15.3%, and 9.1% had an AHI >20. Furthermore, 6.5% of the males met the minimal diagnostic criteria for OSAHS with an AHI >5 combined with daytime sleepiness. A recent study by Bixler et al. 20 showed a mean prevalence of 3.3% among males aged 20100 yrs. A peak prevalence of 4.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.17.1%) was found among males aged 4564 yrs. Among the 2044-yr-olds and those aged >65 yrs the prevalence of OSAHS was 1.7%.
Sleep apnoea in the young and elderly
It has long been recognised that sleep apnoeas are very common in the elderly. A total 1924% of people aged >65 yrs have been reported to have more than five apnoeic events (AI >5) per hour of sleep in different epidemiological studies 24, 25. In another study, 62% of elderly people had respiratory disturbance index (RDI) Morbidity and mortality related to sleep apnoea syndrome The morbidity of OSAHS relates principally to the cardiovascular system. Compared to the general population, OSAHS patients appear to have at least twice as much hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease 2833. However, this population of patients has a high incidence of other co-existing cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, hyperlipidaemia, increased age, male sex, smoking history and excessive alcohol intake, which makes the identification of a clear independent association of OSAHS with cardiovascular disease more difficult 34. Nonetheless, there is now convincing evidence from many studies of an independent association of OSAHS with hypertension 2830 and this association has been reinforced by recent studies demonstrating a reduction in blood pressure levels with nCPAP therapy 30, 35. Furthermore, a dose/response association between sleep-disordered breathing at baseline and the presence of hypertension 4-yrs later has been reported independently of known confounding factors 28. In particular, the ORs for the presence of hypertension at follow-up were 1.42 with an AHI of 0.14.9·h1 at baseline compared with an AHI of zero, indicating that even minor degrees of sleep-disordered breathing may contribute independently to the development of hypertension.
A growing, but not yet conclusive, body of evidence points to an independent link between OSAHS and ischaemic heart disease 31, 32, cardiac dysrhythmias 36 and stroke 3739. Finally, there have been several studies examining mortality in OSAHS 4042. The mortality rates were evaluated at
Impact of treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea/ hypopnoea on associated cardiovascular morbidity Association of sleep apnoea with road traffic accidents The principal daytime manifestation of OSAHS is sleepiness, which has long been recognised to be capable of adversely affecting awake functioning. The most serious potential consequence of sleepiness is impaired performance at the wheel while driving and there is now convincing evidence that sleepiness is a substantial risk factor for driving accidents. Estimates indicate that sleepiness causes over 2025% of motorway accidents in the UK 44. On the other hand, it has been shown that sleepiness is prevalent among drivers in general. From questionnaires distributed to 4,621 male UK drivers, 29% of them had felt close to falling asleep at the wheel in the last 12 months, and 910% had accidents related to tiredness 45. Furthermore, 26% of US drivers had an Epworth Sleepiness Score >10 and 2% had a score >15 46. Among other causes of sleepiness while driving, sleep disorders such as narcolepsy and OSAHS are clearly important contributors and both disorders have been associated with an increased accident risk 47. The relationship of OSAHS to road traffic accidents has been recognised for over a decade. Findley et al. 48 in 1988 reported that patients with OSAHS had a seven-fold greater risk of road accidents than normals, and furthermore, the automobile accident rate of OSAHS patients was 2.6 times the rate of all licensed drivers in Virginia, USA. In addition, 24% of OSAHS patients reported falling asleep at least once per week while driving. In a community study of 1,001 males in England, Stradling et al. 49 found that regular snorers were significantly more likely to "almost have a car accident due to sleepiness" than others (OR 5.8). Young et al. 50, as part of the ongoing Wisconsin cohort study have reported that subjects with an AHI >15·h1 have a substantially greater risk of motor vehicle accident than those with no sleep-disordered breathing (OR 7.3). Barbe et al. 51 in a prospective controlled study confirmed the increased risk of road accidents among 60 patients with OSAHS compared with a group of matched controls. In another Spanish study, Teran-Santos et al. 52 also found a substantial excess risk for driving accidents in patients with OSAHS. A total 102 drivers, admitted after an accident were compared to 152 controls randomly selected from primary care centres matched for sex, age and geographical location. All patients were screened with home respiratory polygraphy, complemented by confirmatory laboratory polysomnography as needed. The risk for having an accident was increased 6.3-fold (OR 95% CI: 2.416.2) when comparing patients with AHI <10 versus those with AHI >10. Patients with OSAHS also perform worse in simulated driving situations than controls 53, and the performance on one of these simulated driving situations (Steer Clear) has been demonstrated to correlate with accident risk. Accidents related to driver sleepiness are particularly likely to occur in the early morning or mid-afternoon and tend to be particularly serious because of the lack of reaction of the sleepy driver to the impending collision. Furthermore, sleepy drivers report a high incidence of near misses on the road while driving, which suggests that they have an awareness of the driving risks related to sleepiness short of being involved in an actual collision. There is also evidence that occupations such as long-haul truck driving are particularly associated with a risk of sleepiness while driving 54, and an increased risk of accident, particularly where there is evidence of associated OSAHS 55. These findings may not be surprising given the relative sedentary and monotonous nature of this occupation, and the fact that long-haul truck drivers frequently drive for many hours at a time. These findings assume particular significance given the likelihood of a fatal accident where an articulated truck driven by a sleeping driver is involved. Many of the spectacular multiple vehicle collisions that have occurred on motorways throughout Europe have been ultimately traced to a driver falling asleep at the wheel.
Impact of treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea/ hypopnoea syndrome on accident risk The above data clearly identify OSAHS as a significant independent contributing factor to road traffic accidents with important consequences for public safety, particularly since accidents involving a patient with OSAHS are more likely to be associated with major injury. These considerations raise the question of the suitability of patients with OSAHS to hold a valid driving licence unless the condition is adequately treated. This question has previously been addressed by an ad hoc committee of the American Thoracic Society, which in their report 60 emphasised the difficulty in formulating rigid criteria to determine the suitability of a patient with OSAHS to hold a valid driver's licence. These difficulties are underlined by the widely accepted view that the diagnosis of OSAHS should not depend on a particular level of AHI alone, but should also take into account the degree of functional impairment associated with the condition, particularly sleepiness. The objective assessment of sleepiness by multiple sleep latency testing or maintenance of wakefulness testing (MWT) is cumbersome and not practical for widespread clinical use, which further complicates the issue of adequately assessing driving risk. However, a recently described simplified objective test of sleepiness may be useful in some settings 61. While there are validated subjective measures of sleepiness such as the Epworth sleepiness scale 62 that are easy to administer, these measures are open to manipulation by a patient who does not wish to have their driving licence endorsed. Given the high prevalence of OSAHS and related breathing disorders during sleep in the general population, and the evidence that treatment decreases the risk of accidents in treated patients, it seems legitimate to try and reduce the occurrence of sleepiness-related accidents in affected patients by regulating the access to a driving license in those patients. In order to be able to inform sleep specialists as well as patients on the current regulations in European countries, the Task Force undertook a systematic inquiry to collect the relevant information. Driving regulations concerning sleep apnoea and/or excessive daytime sleepiness in different European countries
Methods During the initial search steps, the authors realised that beyond basic regulations on driving licensing and sleepiness, the ways in which the licensing authorities gathered information concerning the possible inability of a candidate to hold a driving license varied substantially from country to country, as did the frequency of inquiry, and the follow-up once an inability was detected. Therefore, in addition to requesting the official text of the driving regulations concerning sleepiness, a questionnaire addressing the questions shown in Appendix 1 was included, which was to be completed separately for Group 1 and Group 2 drivers.
Results
Definition of groups: Directive of the Council (29/07/91) In EU countries, driving licenses are specific to the vehicle driven, according to the following classes. A: motorcycles (A1 <125 cm3 and 11 kW); B: automobiles <3,500 kg, <8 seats excluding driver (B1: tri and quadri motorcycles); C: automobiles >3,500 kg (C1 <7,500 kg); D: >8 seats (D1 <16 seats); E: trailer >750 kg. These classes are pooled into two groups: Group 1, which includes classes A, B and B+E (and A1 and B1) and Group 2, including classes C, C+E, D, D+E (and C1, C1+E, D1, D1+E) and class B professional drivers (taxi, ambulance).
European Union countries The last paragraph (no. 18) of the Directive states that "as a general rule, a driving license should not be given or renewed to any candidate or license holder suffering from a disorder (not mentioned above) likely to compromise safety on the road, except if by authorised medical advice".
This regulation is applied as such in nine out of the 15 EU countries (AU, D, DK, FIN, GR, I, IRL, P). Five countries (B, E, F, S, UK) have specific regulations involving OSAHS or narcolepsy, in addition to idiopathic hypersomnia or insomnia. In the Netherlands, sleep disorders are included in a category of loss of consciousness other than epilepsy, and comprise narcolepsy as well as sleep apnoea. These regulations have been introduced recently between 1994 (NL) and 1998 (B, UK). The general rule is that the presence of the disorder contraindicates the acquisition and/or the maintenance of the driving license. In most cases, drivers or candidates are allowed to obtain or to keep their driving license only if they are effectively treated. This applies to Group 1 (tables 3 and 4 Obviously, the efficacy of such regulations depends on the quality of the information available to the licensing authorities. In most countries, this is left to the sincerity of the license holder or applicant, who completes a form, which includes questions concerning sleep or sleepiness in a few countries (B, UK). In some countries however, the license applicant must produce a medical certificate either systematically (DK, L, P), or only depending on the responses in the questionnaire (B), or even undergo a specific series of tests (E). The frequency with which the procedure is repeated varies widely, from never to every 2 yrs (often depending on the driver's age and the license group).
Some specific situations worth mentioning In Sweden, a medical certificate is mandatory to apply for a driving license and is usually completed by the general practitioner. This must be renewed after the age of 65 yrs for C, D, E license holders, which therefore indicates that the physician decides whether a patient is fit to drive. In Spain, a psychotechnical examination is performed by a private office accredited by licensing authorities, at the first application, then every 10 yrs before the age of 45 yrs, every 5 yrs until the age of 60 yrs, every 3 yrs until an age of 70 yrs, then yearly. The examination includes a test on a driving simulator in addition to sight, hearing and BP testing. A questionnaire on general health includes medication taken and possible sleepiness. If any abnormality is detected, a report to the licensing authorities is made and the candidate is referred to a Sleep Centre. In Belgium, a questionnaire is completed on the initial application for a license. If, at a later date, OSAHS is diagnosed, the driver must send their license to the licensing authority, but may get it back when able to provide a medical certificate stating that they are adequately treated. In Germany, there is no mention of sleepiness in the law concerning disabilities incompatible with a driving license, but under the general rule that any driver should be fit, recommendations were issued by the Ministry of Traffic stating that sleepy OSAHS drivers should not be allowed to drive and specify criteria for adequate treatment for Group 2 drivers. In Italy, although a formal response from the National Licensing Authorities was not obtained, direct information indicated that there are no specific regulations concerning OSAHS, i.e. the general rule concerning fitness to drive applies.
Non-European Union countries
Comment Recommendations concerning driver licensing The data generated in the present survey make clear that there are no uniformly accepted regulations within Europe concerning driving licensing and OSAHS, and indeed many national European licensing authorities make no specific mention of sleep apnoea. These deficiencies underline the importance of adequate measures being taken and regulations put in place to protect both the patient with OSAHS and the wider community from death or injury related to road traffic accidents caused by sleepy drivers with untreated OSAHS. Any such regulations concerning driver licensing in OSAHS must be based on a definition of the condition that relates to likely driving risk rather than some arbitrary AHI level. Particular attention needs to be given to certain high-risk driver occupations such as commercial long-haul truck drivers. Furthermore, given the fact that such a definition should include some measure of sleepiness, care must be taken that unrealistic demands are not made on either the sleep disorders centre that establishes the diagnosis of OSAHS or on the primary physician responsible for the patient's management to determine an individual patient's suitability to hold a valid driving licence. While such a decision would be unlikely to present difficulties in patients with severe OSAHS, this may not be the case in many patients with mild-to-moderate disease, where moderately high AHI levels may not be associated with significant levels of sleepiness and vice versa. These considerations indicate that education of those concerned with implementing driving license policy to produce a greater level of awareness of the problem would be more important and likely to be more successful than arbitrary regulations dictating licensing policy based on certain subjective or objective criteria of either sleep apnoea or sleepiness. Regulations concerning driver licensing in OSAHS should include a shared responsibility between the physician, patient and licensing authority. A distinction can be drawn between private and professional drivers, and it seems appropriate that more strict regulations should be applied to the professional driver because of the increased risk to the general public from sleepiness in this category of driver. Given the high prevalence of OSAHS in Europe, public health and safety make it imperative that practical and realistic guidelines be implemented, preferably on a Europe-wide basis to ensure that patients with OSAHS who present a driving risk are precluded from driving unless given adequate treatment for their condition. Specific regulations for licensing that would exclude sleepy subjects from access to a driving license pose many questions. Philosophically, the choice is between individual freedom and the protection of society against a potential risk. This choice of society has been handled in different ways in different countries, but obviously the debate is still open in many places. Morally, such regulations pose the question of how licensing authorities will obtain the relevant information. The choice is between relying on the driver's honesty, which is open to cheating, or on a third party, usually a doctor, to provide a certificate of medical competence. In this regard, it may be difficult for the patient's own physician to provide a negative certificate or for an external doctor to gather the relevant information. Economic considerations indicate that the cost of sleepiness-related accidents should be compared to the cost of unemployment/decreased quality of life due to the loss of a driving license, but such comparisons have never been made. Ethically, the dilemma of driver certification in OSAHS poses the question of medical power versus medical responsibility. Clearly, specific regulations might give doctors the power to prevent sleepy drivers from driving, which might enhance the general recognition of Sleep Medicine and of Sleep Centres. However, the criteria that could be used to decide a driver's medical fitness before or, even more so, after treatment are not yet clearly established, particularly in view of the difficulties in the objective evaluation of sleepiness. Furthermore, the reality is that the diagnosis of OSAHS is usually made after months or years of sleepy driving, and often after an accident (or a near-miss). Therefore, education of nonspecialised doctors and the general population in the recognition of the disorder would appear to be at least as important as issuing specific regulations. It also poses the question of the confidence between patients and doctors. The risk exists that if the doctor is allowed to report a given patient to the licensing authorities, patients will be tempted to hide their symptoms and not go to the doctor. One could argue that it is better to treat a confident patient without declaring the disorder to the authorities than to deal with a suspicious and uncooperative patient. Finally, from the practical point of view, it appears that education and information of the professionals involved in road safety plays a critical role. Having specific regulations concerning sleepy drivers would be meaningless if police and other law officers are not aware of the details. All sleep specialists have seen patients who have had car accidents due to falling asleep at the wheel in which the police, and sometimes the court, have taken legal measures against the offender but have failed to recommend medical intervention. While it is far from clear that specific regulations concerning sleepiness and driving are effective in reducing road accidents related to OSAHS, such specific regulations, where applied, deserve further evaluation and update. This is particularly so since there are no objective data on the prevalence of sleepiness-related accidents from those countries that have introduced such regulations. However, whatever the legislation, the clinician has a responsibility to inform his patient of the risks related to sleepiness, and to discourage him from driving as long as he is not effectively treated. In some countries, it may also be the doctor's responsibility to inform the licensing authorities. Association of sleep apnoea with other forms of accidents The evidence of association between sleepiness and other forms of accidents, particularly industrial accidents, is limited. In a questionnaire survey, Krieger et al. 58 demonstrated a higher frequency of domestic and occupational accidents in patients with OSAHS compared to the general French population and a reduction in the accident rate following introduction of CPAP therapy. A more recent 10-yr prospective population study by Lindberg et al. 63 reported a significantly higher risk of industrial accidents (OR 2.2) among snorers who also reported excessive daytime sleepiness compared to subjects who were neither sleepy nor snored. These data strongly suggest an association between OSAHS and industrial accident risk similar to that seen with driving accidents but further work is needed in this area to more clearly establish the types of occupation that are most at risk. Resource implications for the investigation and management of sleep apnoea syndrome Measures to reduce the impact of OSAHS and the related driver sleepiness on road traffic accidents have little meaning if there are inadequate facilities available to investigate and manage patients with the disorder. Such facilities are inadequate in most countries throughout Europe, which reflects the high prevalence of the disorder and also the fact that OSAHS is a relatively recently recognised clinical problem. Thus, hospital administrators and clinicians from other disciplines may not recognise the importance of providing appropriate facilities for the practice of sleep medicine. Even many sleep specialists have been surprised at the high prevalence of the disorder and most clinical sleep centres have long waiting lists of patients awaiting investigation and/or treatment. Current epidemiological data indicate that there are likely to be at least 5 million patients suffering from OSAHS throughout Europe, and this disorder is second only to asthma in the prevalence league table of chronic respiratory disorders. Thus, the provision of appropriate clinical facilities to investigate and manage these patients represents a major challenge for the Health Services in each European state. While it may be understandable that healthcare providers in some countries are hesitant to commit substantial resources to the investigation and management of patients with OSAHS, such hesitancy is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the cost of investigation of these patients compares favourably with the costs of investigation in many other medical specialties such as the cost of endoscopy in gastrointestinal disorders. This is particularly so where ambulatory sleep studies are performed. The cost of nCPAP therapy principally relates to the one-off cost of the CPAP device, which compares very favourably with the ongoing cost of inhaled therapy in chronic asthma. Second, the benefits of CPAP therapy in OSAHS are now clearly established in terms of improved quality of life, personal and public safety, and more recently, reduced morbidity. While there are few validated figures available, there appears little doubt that in straight financial terms, the economic benefit in terms of increased productivity, reduced accident risk, and reduced healthcare utilisation from related morbidity would substantially outweigh the economic cost of investigating and treating the disorder. A recent position statement of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 64 unequivocally supports the cost justification for diagnosis and treatment of OSAHS, particularly the cost benefit of sleep monitoring in the diagnosis. There is evidence that prior to diagnosis, patients with OSAHS incur higher healthcare costs than matched control subjects 6568. Ronald et al. 65 reported that OSAHS patients used more than twice as many healthcare services in the 10-yr period prior to diagnosis compared to controls, and the excess cost compared with control subjects was in the region of 4,265 Canadian dollars per patient. Furthermore, the same group reported a significant reduction in healthcare costs in the 2-yr period after introduction of CPAP therapy compared to the 5-yr period before diagnosis and also compared to matched controls during the same 7-yr period of follow-up 67. Kapur et al. 68 reported an annual healthcare utilisation cost of US $2,720 for OSAHS patients prior to diagnosis compared to US $1,384 among matched control subjects. It is clear from the foregoing discussion that much remains to be done to educate healthcare workers, health administrators, and politicians on the importance of disorders such as obstructive sleep apnoea/ hypopnoea syndrome and the practical value in providing the resources needed to adequately manage the disorder in Europe. The European Respiratory Society has an important role to play in this endeavour, particularly at a pan-European level. This aspect of respiratory medicine appears ideally suited to a targeted approach to the European Commission, which has identified public health as a key area for attention in the coming years.
Appendix 1: Questionnaire sent to National Licensing Authorities 1) In your country, are there regulations requiring sleepy drivers to be reported to the Vehicle Licensing Authorities or some other statutory body (please name):
Yes: If so, what are these regulations?: (Please include a copy of the corresponding text)
Please specify: 2) Who must report the sleepy driver (or more generally a disability) to the authorities
3) Once the individual has been reported, how is further information obtained upon which a decision is made about the suitability of driving:
If the treatment of a sleep disorder allows the return of driving license, are there legal conditions for the efficacy of treatment? Yes: Appendix 2: Initial set of addresses of National Licensing Authorities European Union countries
Non-European Union countries
Second set of addresses of National Licensing Authorities
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following colleagues who contributed various information: T. Akerstedt, K. Bloch, A. Boudewijns, A. DeWeerd, L. Dolenc, N. Douglas, O. Ferenc, D. Garcia-Borreguero, G.L. Gigli, T. Gislason, M.Gugger, J. Hasan, J. Hedner, A. Jimenez-Gomez, H. Kaynak, M. Kerkhofs, P. Lavie, G. Mayer, C. Monasterio-Ponsa, J. Moutinho dos Santos, F. Obal, T. Podszus, K. Sonka, E. Stammova, J. Stradling, W. Szelenberg, T. Telakivi, P. Valenti, Z. Tomori, M. Zamagni. References
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||