切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (09) : 890 -898. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2024.09.012

循证医学

基于数据挖掘法分析3 种超声造影剂不良反应信号
宋勇1, 李东炫2, 王翔1, 李锐1,()   
  1. 1. 401120 重庆医科大学附属第三医院超声科
    2. 401120 重庆医科大学附属第三医院药剂科
  • 收稿日期:2023-12-12 出版日期:2024-09-09
  • 通信作者: 李锐

Analysis of adverse reaction signals of three ultrasound contrast agents (Optison, Definity, and Lumason)using a data mining method

Yong Song1, Dongxuan Li2, Xiang Wang1, Rui Li1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound,the Third Affliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University,Chongqing 401120,China
    2. Department of Pharmacy,the Third Affliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University,Chongqing 401120,China
  • Received:2023-12-12 Published:2024-09-09
  • Corresponding author: Rui Li
引用本文:

宋勇, 李东炫, 王翔, 李锐. 基于数据挖掘法分析3 种超声造影剂不良反应信号[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 890-898.

Yong Song, Dongxuan Li, Xiang Wang, Rui Li. Analysis of adverse reaction signals of three ultrasound contrast agents (Optison, Definity, and Lumason)using a data mining method[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2024, 21(09): 890-898.

目的

对3 种超声造影剂(Optison、Definity、Lumason)的不良反应事件(ADE)进行分析和总结,为优化临床实践提供参考信息。

方法

提取美国食品药品监督管理局不良反应事件呈报系统(FARES)中2004 年1 月1 日至2022 年12 月31 日间有关Optison、Definity、Lumason的ADE 报告,获取报告的基本特征。同时,应用报告比值比(ROR)法和英国药品和保健品管理局(MHRA)综合标准法对3 种超声造影剂进行首选术语层级和标准MedDRA 分析查询(SMQ)层级的药品不良反应(ADR)信号检测,评估其安全性。

结果

FAERS 数据库中包含3 种超声造影剂相关ADR 报告1661 份,其中Optison、Definity 和Lumason 相关ADE 报告分别为31 份、1523 份和107 份。总体来看,ADE 报告中男性患者(811 份)多于女性患者(693 份),患者年龄集中在45 岁及以上者(994 份),而Lumason 的死亡病例报告占比最高(8.41%)。在ADR 信号检测中,Optison 1 个首选术语、5 个SMQ 检测出阳性信号;Definity 58 个首选术语、10 个SMQ 检测出阳性信号;Lumason 37 个首选术语、10 个SMQ 检测出阳性信号。在首选术语层级ADR 信号检测中,Definity检测到了3 个(晕厥前期、发绀、刺激反应消失)说明书未记录的新信号,Lumason 检测到了8 个(苍白、晕厥前期、多汗、灼烧感、肺水肿、感觉热、肺栓塞、产品复溶质量问题)说明书未记录的新信号。在SMQ 层级ADR 检测结果提示,过敏反应相关疾病及休克病症是超声造影剂所共有的风险特性。

结论

3 种超声造影剂均存在潜在的ADR 风险,且不良反应症状之间存在共性与差异性。医务人员在超声造影检查中应严密监测患者,及时处置发生的ADR,保障患者医疗安全。

Objective

To analyze and summarize the adverse reactions associated with three ultrasound contrast agents (Optison, Definity, and Lumason), in order to provide reference information for optimizing clinical practice.

Methods

Adverse event (ADE) reports on Optison, Definity, and Lumason from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2022 were extracted from the FDA Adverse Event Report System(FAERS), and the basic characteristics of the reports were obtained. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) method and the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) comprehensive standard method were used to detect the adverse drug reaction (ADR) signals at the preferred term (PT) level and the standard MedDRA query (SMQ) level to evaluate the safety of the three ultrasound contrast agents.

Results

The FAERS database contained 1661 ADR reports related to the three ultrasound contrast agents, with 31, 1523,and 107 ADE reports related to Optison, Definity, and Lumason, respectively. Overall, there were more male patients (811) than female patients (693) in ADE reports, the main age group was 45 years and older (994),and Lumason had the highest percentage of fatal case reports (8.41%). In ADR signal detection, positive signals were detected in 1 PT and 5 SMQs for Optison, in 58 PTs and 10 SMQs for Definity, and in 37 PTs and 10 SMQs for Lumason. In the PT level ADR signal detection, 3 new signals (pre-syncope, cyanosis,and loss of stimulus response) which were not recorded in the label were detected for Definity, and 8 new signals (pallor, pre-syncope, hyperhidrosis, burning sensation, pulmonary edema, heat sensation, pulmonary embolism, and product reconstitution quality problems) were detected for Lumason. The results of ADR detection at the SMQ level suggested that anaphylactic reaction-related diseases and shock disorders were risk characteristics shared by ultrasound contrast agents.

Conclusion

All three ultrasound contrast agents have potential ADR risks, and there are commonalities and differences among their ADR symptoms. Medical personnel should closely monitor patients during ultrasonography and promptly manage ADR that occur to ensure patient safety.

表1 检测药物不良反应的比例失衡法四格表
表2 ADE 信号检测方法的计算公式及阳性信号判定标准
图1 Optison、Definity、Lumason 3 种超声造影剂的不良反应事件报告数据提取流程图及检索结果 注:PT 为首选术语,SMQ 为标准MedDRA 分析查询
表3 3种超声造影剂的不良反应事件报告基本特征信息[例(%)]
表4 超声造影剂Def inity 的不良反应事件风险信号
首选术语 例数(%) ROR(95%CI) PRR(χ2
背痛 833(54.69) 129.70(117.23~143.50) 59.31(47744.88)
腰肋疼痛 24(1.58) 44.07(29.41~66.04) 43.39(946.53)
造影剂反应 6(0.39) 41.77(18.69~93.33) 41.60(197.76)
肾疼痛 14(0.92) 21.12(12.47~35.77) 20.93(245.54)
潮红 102(6.70) 15.93(13.03~19.48) 14.93(1314.92)
腹股沟疼痛 7(0.46) 13.95(6.63~29.32) 13.89(71.20)
荨麻疹 127(8.34) 13.18(10.99~15.81) 12.16(1296.78)
脉搏消失 4(0.26) 12.44(4.66~33.21) 12.41(31.27)
嘴水肿 3(0.20) 10.70(3.44~33.23) 10.68(17.50)
皮肤发热 3(0.20) 9.92(3.19~30.82) 9.90(15.92)
咽喉缩紧感 17(1.12) 9.85(6.10~15.89) 9.75(124.80)
无脉性电活动 3(0.20) 9.21(2.97~28.61) 9.19(14.46)
室性心动过速 10(0.66) 9.13(4.90~17.00) 9.07(63.94)
颈痛 29(1.90) 8.89(6.15~12.84) 8.74(191.17)
心室颤动 6(0.39) 7.99(3.58~17.82) 7.96(29.86)
肌肉骨骼不适 8(0.53) 7.82(3.90~15.66) 7.78(40.71)
胸痛 89(5.84) 7.58(6.12~9.40) 7.20(472.31)
感觉热 28(1.84) 7.28(5.01~10.58) 7.16(142.60)
咽部水肿 9(0.59) 7.16(3.72~13.79) 7.12(41.44)
呼吸停止 14(0.92) 7.03(4.15~11.90) 6.97(65.81)
室上性心动过速 4(0.26) 6.47(2.42~17.27) 6.46(13.39)
呼吸窘迫 11(0.72) 6.36(3.52~11.52) 6.32(44.13)
胸部不适 36(2.36) 6.11(4.39~8.50) 5.99(144.98)
支气管痉挛 5(0.33) 5.96(2.48~14.35) 5.95(15.92)
发绀* 6(0.39) 5.90(2.65~13.16) 5.88(19.66)
骨骼肌肉疼痛 19(1.25) 5.66(3.60~8.90) 5.60(67.42)
肌痉挛 65(4.27) 5.65(4.41~7.25) 5.46(233.72)
呼吸暂停 3(0.20) 5.36(1.73~16.66) 5.36(6.72)
唇部肿胀 11(0.72) 4.91(2.71~8.88) 4.88(30.19)
呼吸急促 4(0.26) 4.83(1.81~12.89) 4.82(8.59)
血压降低 18(1.18) 4.46(2.80~7.09) 4.41(44.27)
室性期前收缩 3(0.20) 4.41(1.42~13.71) 4.41(4.86)
窦性心动过速 4(0.26) 4.25(1.59~11.35) 4.24(6.94)
刺激反应消失* 7(0.46) 4.10(1.95~8.62) 4.09(13.40)
口腔感觉减退 4(0.26) 4.04(1.51~10.77) 4.03(6.33)
血氧饱和度降低 10(0.66) 3.85(2.07~7.18) 3.83(18.24)
呼吸困难 125(8.21) 3.79(3.16~4.55) 3.56(232.74)
心脏停搏 21(1.38) 3.77(2.45~5.80) 3.73(39.39)
速发严重过敏反应 12(0.79) 3.61(2.04~6.37) 3.59(19.91)
肢体疼痛 64(4.20) 3.54(2.76~4.55) 3.43(109.29)
多汗 30(1.97) 3.49(2.43~5.02) 3.44(49.88)
晕厥前期* 5(0.33) 3.44(1.43~8.28) 3.43(6.36)
心率升高 21(1.38) 3.41(2.22~5.25) 3.38(32.93)
心动过缓 12(0.79) 3.29(1.86~5.80) 3.27(16.71)
肿舌 7(0.46) 3.12(1.48~6.55) 3.11(8.02)
缺氧 6(0.39) 3.05(1.37~6.79) 3.04(6.30)
心动过速 17(1.12) 3.04(1.88~4.90) 3.01(20.96)
昏迷 10(0.66) 2.92(1.57~5.44) 2.91(10.72)
瘙痒 62(4.07) 2.89(2.24~3.73) 2.81(71.73)
晕厥 19(1.25) 2.85(1.81~4.48) 2.83(20.76)
红斑 28(1.84) 2.85(1.96~4.14) 2.81(31.09)
哮鸣 9(0.59) 2.82(1.46~5.43) 2.81(8.76)
低血压 34(2.23) 2.78(1.98~3.91) 2.74(36.18)
血压升高 24(1.58) 2.60(1.74~3.89) 2.57(21.66)
心搏呼吸骤停 7(0.46) 2.43(1.16~5.11) 2.43(4.53)
意识丧失 20(1.31) 2.36(1.52~3.67) 2.34(14.11)
面肿 9(0.59) 2.20(1.14~4.25) 2.20(4.75)
头痛 87(5.71) 2.17(1.75~2.69) 2.10(50.50)
表5 超声造影剂Lumason 的不良反应事件风险信号
首选术语 例数(%) ROR(95%CI) PRR(χ2
产品复溶质量问题* 4(3.74) 896.23(328.74~2443.36) 862.76(2613.08)
造影剂反应 4(3.74) 409.34(150.48~1113.48) 394.07(1195.32)
脉搏消失 7(6.54) 331.07(153.69~713.16) 309.47(1849.66)
无脉性电活动 4(3.74) 181.30(66.72~492.66) 174.56(526.81)
刺激反应消失 13(12.15) 122.97(68.84~219.69) 108.16(1275.14)
速发严重过敏反应 19(17.76) 98.13(59.76~161.13) 80.88(1422.10)
呼吸窘迫 7(6.54) 61.21(28.44~131.73) 57.27(332.98)
苍白* 5(4.67) 40.73(16.59~99.97) 38.87(148.68)
晕厥前期* 4(3.74) 40.58(14.94~110.19) 39.10(112.90)
心搏呼吸骤停 6(5.61) 31.28(13.73~71.29) 29.59(138.59)
多汗* 16(14.95) 30.57(17.97~52.00) 26.14(364.17)
过敏性休克 3(2.80) 29.64(9.40~93.42) 28.84(55.22)
心率降低 4(3.74) 27.98(10.30~75.98) 26.97(75.84)
心脏停搏 10(9.35) 27.78(14.49~53.26) 25.27(210.21)
咽喉缩紧感 3(2.80) 25.13(7.98~79.21) 24.46(46.12)
缺氧 3(2.80) 22.22(7.05~70.03) 21.63(40.24)
血压降低 6(5.61) 22.12(9.71~50.41) 20.94(95.08)
感觉热* 5(4.67) 19.04(7.76~46.72) 18.19(65.11)
肺水肿* 3(2.80) 15.75(5.00~49.64) 15.34(27.19)
烧灼感* 5(4.67) 15.61(6.36~38.30) 14.93(51.94)
哮鸣 3(2.80) 13.67(4.34~43.09) 13.32(23.02)
潮红 6(5.61) 13.16(5.78~29.99) 12.48(52.62)
异常感觉 9(8.41) 12.90(6.52~25.53) 11.90(79.82)
晕厥 5(4.67) 11.06(4.51~27.15) 10.59(34.53)
意识丧失 6(5.61) 10.52(4.62~23.98) 9.99(40.19)
心动过速 4(3.74) 10.44(3.85~28.35) 10.09(24.38)
胸痛 8(7.48) 9.87(4.80~20.28) 9.20(51.00)
低血压 8(7.48) 9.84(4.79~20.23) 9.18(50.84)
超敏反应 7(6.54) 8.83(4.10~19.01) 8.32(38.36)
呼吸困难 18(16.82) 8.57(5.16~14.22) 7.29(93.71)
心房颤动 3(2.80) 7.25(2.30~22.86) 7.08(10.21)
肺栓塞* 3(2.80) 6.18(1.96~19.47) 6.03(8.10)
红斑 4(3.74) 5.90(2.17~16.02) 5.72(11.28)
惊厥发作 4(3.74) 4.70(1.73~12.75) 4.56(7.90)
头晕 9(8.41) 4.10(2.07~8.11) 3.84(16.52)
呕吐 7(6.54) 3.52(1.64~7.58) 3.36(9.54)
恶心 10(9.35) 2.94(1.54~5.65) 2.76(9.89)
表6 Optison、Definity、Lumason 基于SMQ 术语集的ADR 风险信号
药物所涉及的SMQ 例数(%) ROR(95%CI) PRR(χ2
Optison(n=31)
过敏性/类过敏性休克病症 3(9.68) 20.86(6.34~68.62) 18.94(34.79)
速发严重过敏反应 3(9.68) 20.30(6.17~66.79) 18.44(33.75)
与休克相关的循环或心脏病症(尖端扭转型室性心动过速除外) 3(9.68) 11.39(3.46~37.46) 10.38(17.08)
血管性水肿 3(9.68) 5.92(1.80~19.48) 5.45(7.02)
超敏性 9(29.03) 5.17(2.38~11.22) 3.96(18.38)
Definity(n=1523)
室性快速型心律失常 20(1.31) 6.55(4.21~10.18) 6.48(87.32)
血管性水肿 151(9.91) 6.09(5.15~7.20) 5.58(573.29)
与休克相关的循环或心脏病症(尖端扭转型室性心动过速除外) 43(2.82) 3.09(2.28~4.18) 3.03(56.98)
尖端扭转型室性心动过速/QT间期延长* 12(0.79) 3.01(1.70~5.30) 2.99(13.99)
过敏性/类过敏性休克病症 21(1.38) 2.72(1.77~4.19) 2.70(20.89)
速发严重过敏反应 21(1.38) 2.65(1.72~4.08) 2.63(19.67)
呼吸衰竭 32(2.10) 2.48(1.75~3.52) 2.45(26.25)
口咽过敏反应* 19(1.25) 2.45(1.56~3.86) 2.44(14.73)
超敏性 244(16.02) 2.41(2.10~2.76) 2.18(167.54)
与休克相关的尖端扭转型室性心动过速病症* 12(0.79) 2.34(1.32~4.13) 2.33(7.82)
Lumason(n=107)
过敏性/类过敏性休克病症 23(21.50) 53.33(33.62~84.60) 42.08(885.99)
速发严重过敏反应 23(21.50) 51.91(32.72~82.33) 40.96(861.37)
与休克相关的循环或心脏病症(尖端扭转型室性心动过速除外) 25(23.36) 32.41(20.71~50.72) 25.07(559.08)
室性快速型心律失常 3(2.80) 14.19(4.50~44.71) 13.82(24.05)
非特异性心律失常* 5(4.67) 13.96(5.69~34.27) 13.36(45.63)
呼吸衰竭 7(6.54) 8.09(3.76~17.41) 7.63(34.25)
室上性快速型心律失常* 4(3.74) 7.21(2.66~19.58) 6.98(15.03)
超敏性 37(34.58) 6.67(4.48~9.94) 4.71(112.78)
免疫接种后全身性惊厥癫痫发作* 6(5.61) 5.26(2.31~11.98) 5.02(15.66)
惊厥* 6(5.61) 4.94(2.17~11.26) 4.72(14.24)
1
Porter TR, Mulvagh SL, Abdelmoneim SS, et al. Clinical applications of ultrasonic enhancing agents in echocardiography: 2018 American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Update [J]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2018, 31(3): 241-274.
2
Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: update 2017 (short version) [J]. Ultraschall Med, 2018, 39(2): 154-180.
3
Kumar S, Purtell C, Peterson A, et al. Safety profile of ultrasound enhancing agents in echocardiography [J]. Echocardiography, 2019,36(6): 1041-1044.
4
Kalra A, Shroff GR, Erlien D, et al. Perflutren-based echocardiographic contrast in patients with right-to-left intracardiac shunts [J]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2014, 7(2): 206-207.
5
Piscaglia F, Bolondi L, Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast Agents. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2006, 32(9): 1369-1375.
6
Levano JA, Jimenez MA, Laiseca A, et al. Anaphylactic shock due to SonoVue [J]. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 2012, 108(3): 208-209.
7
Torzilli G. Adverse effects associated with SonoVue use [J]. Expert Opin Drug Saf, 2005, 4(3): 399-401.
8
Lucas S, Ailani J, Smith TR, et al. Pharmacovigilance: reporting requirements throughout a product's lifecycle [J]. Ther Adv Drug Saf,2022, 13: 20420986221125006.
9
张婧媛, 白羽霞, 韩晟, 等. 数据挖掘方法检测药品不良反应信号的应用研究 [J]. 药物不良反应杂志, 2016, 18(6): 412-416.
10
Li D, Gou J, Dong J, et al. Asparaginase-related diabetic ketoacidosis:analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data and literature review [J]. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2022, 47(12): 2176-2181.
11
Coleman JL, Navid F, Furman WL, et al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in the pediatric oncologic population: a single-institution experience [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014, 202(5): 966-970.
12
Gabriel RS, Smyth YM, Menon V, et al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in stress echocardiography [J]. Am J Cardiol, 2008, 102(9):1269-1272.
13
Hu C, Feng Y, Huang P, et al. Adverse reactions after the use of SonoVue contrast agent: characteristics and nursing care experience [J].Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(44): e17745.
14
Hauben M, Hung EY, Hanretta KC, et al. Safety of perflutren ultrasound contrast agents: a disproportionality analysis of the US FAERS database [J]. Drug Saf, 2015, 38(11): 1127-1139.
15
Wei K, Mulvagh SL, Carson L, et al. The safety of deFinity and Optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses [J]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2008,21(11): 1202-1206.
16
Muskula PR, Main ML. Safety with echocardiographic contrast agents[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging, 2017, 10(4): e005459.
17
Moghimi SM. Nanomedicine safety in preclinical and clinical development: focus on idiosyncratic injection/infusion reactions [J].Drug Discov Today, 2018, 23(5): 1034-1042.
18
Schneider M. Les agents de contraste en ultrasonographie: de la synthèse à l'injection, l'exemple de Sonovue [Contrast media in ultrasonography: from synthesis to clinical use. The Sonovue example][J]. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris), 2002, 51(4): 218-220.
19
Galema TW, Geleijnse ML, Vletter WB, et al. Clinical usefulness of SonoVue contrast echocardiography: the Thoraxcentre experience [J].Neth Heart J, 2007, 15(2): 55-60.
20
Henri M, Florence E, Aurore B, et al. Contribution of contrastenhanced ultrasound with Sonovue to describe the microvascularization of uterine fibroid tumors before and after uterine artery embolization[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2014, 181: 104-110.
21
Li Q, Yang K, Ji Y, et al. Safety analysis of adverse events of ultrasound contrast agent Lumason/SonoVue in 49,100 patients [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2023, 49(2): 454-459.
22
Shang Y, Xie X, Luo Y, et al. Safety findings after intravenous administration of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles to 463,434 examinations at 24 centers [J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(2): 988-995.
23
Cha MJ, Kang DY, Lee W, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: a multicenter study of 196 081 patients [J]. Radiology,2019, 293(1): 117-124.
[1] 徐晓川, 唐毅, 陈镜宇, 计晓娟, 杨春江, 朱丽容. IR780-VPN靶向纳米粒的制备及其对肾母细胞瘤的抑制作用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2020, 17(04): 363-369.
[2] 黄晶, 邓慧, 李乐生. 鹦鹉热衣原体致重症社区获得性肺炎伴胰腺损伤一例并文献复习[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 209-214.
[3] 周慧杰, 张云龙. 基于数据挖掘技术分析肾纤维化的中医病机与治法[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 152-160.
[4] 温绍敏, 王雅晳, 施依璐, 段莎莎, 云书荣, 张小杉. 靶向超声造影技术在动脉粥样硬化治疗中的应用进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 496-499.
[5] 费诗茵, 陈洁, 刘军, 王婷婷, 周盟, 何家俊. 炎症性肠病相关药物性胰腺炎的研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(03): 213-217.
[6] 孙茹蓉, 徐婷, 谢雯, 马英淳, 张佩蓉, 喻少波, 徐正, 张璐, 周士亮, 蒋婉岚, 谈俊燕, 吴敏. 高尿酸血症危险因素的数据挖掘及关联规则研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(10): 835-839.
[7] 于相芬, 孙宇新, 孙振晓. 米氮平在精神药物不良反应中的应用进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(15): 2097-2100.
[8] 贺芳. 浅谈大数据时代妊娠期糖尿病患者健康教育模式[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2021, 10(02): 78-81.
[9] 张儒奇, 朱炳旭, 林子悦, 董晓婕, 张丽. 砭术临床应用古今文献研究[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2024, 13(01): 30-35.
[10] 李志道, 李玉仙, 麻凯璇. 刍议《针灸甲乙经》的历史贡献[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2023, 12(02): 50-52.
[11] 赵玉, 杨继鹏, 赵晓丽, 耿强, 欧阳斌, 夏天. 基于数据挖掘技术探讨针刺治疗男性不育症的选穴循经规律[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2023, 12(01): 32-36.
[12] 林文君. 3例超剂量使用阿莫西林-克拉维酸钾后尿液结晶的分析[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2024, 12(01): 48-51.
阅读次数
全文


摘要