Denne side blev automatisk oversat, og nøjagtigheden af ​​oversættelsen er ikke garanteret. Der henvises til engelsk version for en kildetekst.

Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support for Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation (ABG-AI RCT)

24. september 2026 opdateret af: Semih Musa Coşkun, Izmir Katip Celebi University

Expert-Validated Generative AI Support for Arterial Blood Gas Interpretation in Early-Career Non-Specialist Physicians: A Randomized Controlled Study

This randomized controlled study evaluated whether expert-validated ChatGPT support improved arterial blood gas (ABG) interpretation performance among early-career non-specialist physicians. Participants completed a baseline assessment consisting of 11 standardized clinical scenarios covering five domains of ABG interpretation. Eligible participants who entered the reassessment phase were randomly assigned to either an AI-supported group or a control group.

One week after baseline assessment, participants completed a posttest using the same clinical scenarios. The AI-supported group received expert-validated ChatGPT responses before answering each case, whereas the control group completed the assessment without AI support.

The primary outcome was posttest total ABG interpretation accuracy across 55 scored items, compared between groups after adjustment for baseline accuracy. Secondary outcomes included changes in total accuracy, domain-specific accuracy, case-level performance, and item-level accuracy.

Studieoversigt

Status

Status

Angiver den aktuelle rekrutteringsstatus eller den udvidede adgangsstatus.
Afsluttet

Betingelser

Betingelser

Den sygdom, lidelse, syndrom, sygdom eller skade, der undersøges. På ClinicalTrials.gov kan tilstande også omfatte andre sundhedsrelaterede problemer, såsom levetid, livskvalitet og sundhedsrisici.

Intervention / Behandling

Intervention / Behandling

En proces eller handling, der er i fokus for en klinisk undersøgelse. Interventioner omfatter lægemidler, medicinsk udstyr, procedurer, vacciner og andre produkter, der enten er til undersøgelse eller allerede er tilgængelige. Interventioner kan også omfatte ikke-invasive tilgange, såsom uddannelse eller ændring af kost og motion.

Undersøgelsestype

Undersøgelsestype

Beskriver karakteren af ​​en klinisk undersøgelse. Undersøgelsestyper omfatter interventionelle undersøgelser (også kaldet kliniske forsøg), observationsundersøgelser (herunder patientregistre) og udvidet adgang.
Interventionel

Tilmelding (Faktiske)

Tilmelding

Antallet af deltagere i en klinisk undersøgelse. Den "forventede" tilmelding er det mål for antallet af deltagere, som forskerne skal bruge til undersøgelsen.
161

Fase

Fase

Stadiet af et klinisk forsøg, der studerer et lægemiddel eller et biologisk produkt, baseret på definitioner udviklet af U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Fasen tager udgangspunkt i undersøgelsens formål, antallet af deltagere og andre karakteristika. Der er fem faser: Tidlig fase 1 (tidligere opført som fase 0), fase 1, fase 2, fase 3 og fase 4. Ikke relevant bruges til at beskrive forsøg uden FDA-definerede faser, herunder forsøg med enheder eller adfærdsmæssige indgreb.
  • Ikke anvendelig

Kontakter og lokationer

Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.

Studiesteder

  • Tyrkiet (Türkiye)
    • Gaziantep
      • Gaziantep, Gaziantep, Tyrkiet (Türkiye)
        • Gaziantep City Hospital

Deltagelseskriterier

Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.

Berettigelseskriterier

Berettigelseskriterier

De nøglekrav, som personer, der ønsker at deltage i et klinisk studie, skal opfylde eller de egenskaber, de skal have. Kvalifikationskriterier består af både inklusionskriterier (som er nødvendige for at en person kan deltage i undersøgelsen) og eksklusionskriterier (som forhindrer en person i at deltage). Typer af berettigelseskriterier omfatter, om en undersøgelse accepterer raske frivillige, har alders- eller aldersgruppekrav eller er begrænset af køn.

Aldre berettiget til at studere

  • Barn
  • Voksen
  • Ældre voksen

Tager imod sunde frivillige

Ja

Køn, der er berettiget til at studere

Alle

Beskrivelse

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Fewer than five years of postgraduate clinical experience
  • Actively involved in patient care
  • Had not completed specialty training

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Residents
  • Specialists
  • Physicians not actively assessing patients
  • Incomplete, duplicate, or unmatchable pretest-posttest records

Studieplan

Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.

Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?

Design detaljer

  • Primært formål: Andet
  • Tildeling: Randomiseret
  • Interventionel model: Parallel tildeling
  • Maskning: Ingen (Åben etiket)

Våben og indgreb

Deltagergruppe / Arm

Deltagergruppe / Arm

En gruppe eller undergruppe af deltagere i et klinisk forsøg, der modtager en specifik intervention/behandling eller ingen intervention i henhold til forsøgets protokol.
Intervention / Behandling

Intervention / Behandling

En proces eller handling, der er i fokus for en klinisk undersøgelse. Interventioner omfatter lægemidler, medicinsk udstyr, procedurer, vacciner og andre produkter, der enten er til undersøgelse eller allerede er tilgængelige. Interventioner kan også omfatte ikke-invasive tilgange, såsom uddannelse eller ændring af kost og motion.
Ingen indgriben: Control group

Participants completed the 11 ABG cases without receiving any AI response, explanation, or recommendation
Eksperimentel: AI-Supported Group

Before each of the 11 ABG cases, participants viewed the expert-validated ChatGPT response before providing their own answers.
Andet: Expert-Validated ChatGPT Support

Before each of the 11 arterial blood gas (ABG) cases, participants viewed a standardized ChatGPT response that had been independently validated against the expert reference key by three physician experts. The response addressed five scored domains and included a brief rationale. Participants then provided their own answers to each case.

Hvad måler undersøgelsen?

Primære resultatmål

Primære resultatmål

I et klinisk studies protokol er det planlagte resultatmål, der er det vigtigste for at evaluere effekten af ​​en intervention/behandling. De fleste kliniske undersøgelser har ét primært resultatmål, men nogle har mere end ét.
Resultatmål
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse
Tidsramme
Posttest Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Tidsramme: One week after baseline assessment

Total accuracy across 55 scored items, comprising five scored domains for each of 11 ABG cases. Each item was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0), and total accuracy was calculated as the number of correct responses divided by 55 × 100. The primary analysis compared posttest total accuracy between the AI-supported and control groups, adjusted for baseline total accuracy.
One week after baseline assessment

Sekundære resultatmål

Sekundære resultatmål

I en klinisk undersøgelses protokol er et planlagt resultatmål, der ikke er lige så vigtigt som det primære resultatmål for at evaluere effekten af ​​en intervention, men som stadig er af interesse. De fleste kliniske undersøgelser har mere end ét sekundært resultatmål.
Resultatmål
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse
Tidsramme
Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy From Pretest to Posttest
Tidsramme: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment

Change in total ABG interpretation accuracy from baseline (pretest) to the one-week posttest was assessed within each study group. Total accuracy was calculated across 55 scored items as the number of correct responses divided by 55 × 100.
From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Between-Group Difference in Change in Total ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Tidsramme: From baseline to one week after baseline assessment

The change in total ABG interpretation accuracy from baseline to posttest was compared between the AI-supported and control groups. Change scores were calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy.
From baseline to one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Primary Acid-Base Disorder Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in identifying the primary acid-base disorder was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute Asthma Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the acute asthma exacerbation case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Item-Level ABG Interpretation Accuracy
Tidsramme: One week after baseline assessment

Item-level performance was evaluated across the 55 scored items, comprising five scored domains for each of the 11 ABG cases. The probability of a correct response for individual items was compared between the AI-supported and control groups.
One week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Acid-Base Compensation Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in assessing acid-base compensation was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Electrolyte and Anion Gap Assessment Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in assessing electrolyte and anion gap findings was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Diagnosis Identification Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in identifying the most likely clinical diagnosis was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Change From Baseline in Clinical Management Decision Accuracy on an 11-Item Assessment
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Accuracy in selecting appropriate clinical management was calculated as the number of correct responses across 11 arterial blood gas cases divided by 11 and multiplied by 100. Each response was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The outcome was the change in accuracy from baseline to posttest, calculated as posttest accuracy minus baseline accuracy and expressed in percentage points. Possible change scores ranged from -100 to +100 percentage points, with positive values indicating improved accuracy.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute COPD Exacerbation Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the acute COPD exacerbation case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Methanol Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the methanol intoxication case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diabetic Ketoacidosis Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the diabetic ketoacidosis case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Carbon Monoxide Intoxication Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the carbon monoxide intoxication case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Acute Kidney Injury on Chronic Kidney Disease With Hyperkalemia Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the acute kidney injury on chronic kidney disease with hyperkalemia case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Pulmonary Embolism Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the pulmonary embolism case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Panic Attack With Hyperventilation Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the panic attack with hyperventilation case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Diuretic-Associated Metabolic Alkalosis Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the diuretic-associated metabolic alkalosis case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Hypoglycemia Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the hypoglycemia case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment
Number of Participants by Change Category in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding With Hypovolemic Shock Case Interpretation Score
Tidsramme: Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

For the upper gastrointestinal bleeding with hypovolemic shock case, each participant received one point for each correct response across five predefined assessment domains, yielding a case-specific score ranging from 0 to 5. The posttest score was compared with the baseline score for the same case. Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: improvement (posttest score greater than baseline score), no change (posttest score equal to baseline score), or deterioration (posttest score lower than baseline score). The number of participants in each category was recorded separately for the AI-supported and control groups.
Baseline and one week after baseline assessment

Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere

Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Den organisation eller person, der igangsætter undersøgelsen, og som har myndighed og kontrol over undersøgelsen.
Izmir Katip Celebi University

Efterforskere

Efterforskere

En forsker involveret i et klinisk studie. Beslægtede termer omfatter stedets principal investigator, site sub-investigator, studieformand, undersøgelsesleder og undersøgelseshovedinvestigator.
  • Ledende efterforsker: Coşkun, MD, Gaziantep City Hospital

Datoer for undersøgelser

Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.

Studer store datoer

Studiestart (Faktiske)

Studiestart

Den faktiske dato, hvor den første deltager blev tilmeldt en klinisk undersøgelse. Den "forventede" undersøgelses startdato er den dato, som forskerne tror vil være undersøgelsens startdato.
20. maj 2026

Primær færdiggørelse (Faktiske)

Primær færdiggørelse

Den dato, hvor den sidste deltager i et klinisk studie blev undersøgt eller modtog en intervention for at indsamle endelige data for det primære resultatmål. Hvorvidt det kliniske studie sluttede i henhold til protokollen eller blev afsluttet, påvirker ikke denne dato. For kliniske undersøgelser med mere end ét primært resultatmål med forskellige afslutningsdatoer refererer dette udtryk til den dato, hvor dataindsamlingen er afsluttet for alle de primære resultatmål. Den "forventede" primære afslutningsdato er den dato, som forskerne tror vil være den primære afslutningsdato for undersøgelsen.
5. juni 2026

Studieafslutning (Faktiske)

Studieafslutning

Den dato, hvor den sidste deltager i et klinisk studie blev undersøgt eller modtog en intervention/behandling for at indsamle endelige data for de primære resultatmål, sekundære udfaldsmål og uønskede hændelser (det vil sige den sidste deltagers sidste besøg). Den "forventede" undersøgelses afslutningsdato er den dato, som forskerne tror vil være undersøgelsens afslutningsdato.
5. juni 2026

Datoer for studieregistrering

Først indsendt

Først indsendt

Den dato, hvor undersøgelsens sponsor eller investigator første gang indsendte en undersøgelsespost til ClinicalTrials.gov. Der er typisk en forsinkelse på et par dage mellem den første indsendte dato og postens tilgængelighed på ClinicalTrials.gov (den første offentliggjorte dato).
18. september 2026

Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier

Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier

Den dato, hvor undersøgelsens sponsor eller investigator første gang indsender en undersøgelsespost, der er i overensstemmelse med National Library of Medicine (NLM) kvalitetskontrol (QC) gennemgangskriterier. Sponsoren eller investigatoren skal muligvis revidere og indsende en undersøgelsespost en eller flere gange, før NLM's kvalitetskontrolkriterier er opfyldt. Det er sponsorens eller investigatorens ansvar at sikre, at undersøgelsesposten er i overensstemmelse med NLM QC-gennemgangskriterierne.
24. september 2026

Først opslået (Faktiske)

Først opslået

Datoen, hvor undersøgelsesposten først var tilgængelig på ClinicalTrials.gov efter National Library of Medicine (NLM) kvalitetskontrol (QC) gennemgang er afsluttet. Der er typisk en forsinkelse på et par dage mellem den dato, hvor undersøgelsens sponsor eller investigator indsendte undersøgelsesposten, og den første offentliggjorte dato.
30. september 2026

Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler

Sidste opdatering sendt (Faktiske)

Sidste opdatering sendt

Den seneste dato, hvor ændringer i en undersøgelsespost blev gjort tilgængelig på ClinicalTrials.gov. Der kan være en forsinkelse mellem det tidspunkt, hvornår ændringerne blev indsendt til ClinicalTrials.gov af undersøgelsens sponsor eller investigator (datoen for sidste opdatering afsendt) og den sidste opdatering, der blev sendt.
30. september 2026

Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier

Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier

Den seneste dato, hvor undersøgelsens sponsor eller investigator indsendte ændringer til en undersøgelsespost, der er i overensstemmelse med National Library of Medicine (NLM) kvalitetskontrol (QC) gennemgangskriterier. Det er sponsorens eller investigatorens ansvar at sikre, at undersøgelsesposten er i overensstemmelse med NLM QC-gennemgangskriterierne.
24. september 2026

Sidst verificeret

Sidst verificeret

Den seneste dato, hvor undersøgelsens sponsor eller investigator bekræftede oplysningerne om en klinisk undersøgelse på ClinicalTrials.gov som nøjagtige og aktuelle. Hvis en undersøgelse med rekrutteringsstatus som rekruttering; rekrutterer endnu ikke; eller aktiv, ikke rekruttering er ikke blevet bekræftet inden for de seneste 2 år, er undersøgelsens rekrutteringsstatus vist som ukendt.
1. september 2026

Mere information

Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse

Nøgleord

Andre undersøgelses-id-numre

Andre undersøgelses-id-numre

Andre identifikatorer eller ID-numre end NCT-nummeret, der er tildelt til en klinisk undersøgelse af undersøgelsens sponsor, finansieringsgivere eller andre. Disse numre kan omfatte unikke identifikatorer fra andre forsøgsregistre og National Institutes of Health-bevillingsnumre.
  • 0449

Lægemiddel- og udstyrsoplysninger, undersøgelsesdokumenter

Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret lægemiddelprodukt

Ingen

Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret enhedsprodukt

Ingen

Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .

Cookieindstillinger

Vi bruger cookies for at sikre, at vi giver dig den bedste oplevelse på vores hjemmeside. For flere detaljer skal du læse omhyggeligt vores Politik om beskyttelse af personlige oplysninger og cookies. ...>>>Du kan når som helst ændre dine præferencer eller trække dit samtykke tilbage ved at slette cookies fra din hjemmeside eller computer som beskrevet i politikken. Accepter det og vælg dine præferencer ved at markere de tilsvarende felter i afsnittet "Administrer indstillinger" nedenfor. Læs vores servicevilkår omhyggeligt, inden du fortsætter med at bruge nogen del af dette websted.
«Administrer indstillinger