Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
15 References (15 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

blocked
Journal The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 9 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (9 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty. METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Interventions for Neuropathic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

blocked
Journal Anesthesia and analgesia
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 97 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (97 references)

Loading references information
Numerous interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP) are available, but its treatment remains unsatisfactory. We systematically summarized evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials on interventions for NeuP. Five electronic databases were searched up to March 2015. Study quality was analyzed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The most common interventions in 97 included SRs were pharmacologic (59%) and surgical (15%). The majority of analyzed SRs were of medium quality. More than 50% of conclusions from abstracts on efficacy and approximately 80% on safety were inconclusive. Effective interventions were described for painful diabetic neuropathy (pregabalin, gabapentin, certain tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants), postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin, pregabalin, certain TCAs, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, opioids, sodium valproate, topical capsaicin, and lidocaine), lumbar radicular pain (epidural corticosteroids, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], and discectomy), cervical radicular pain (rTMS), carpal tunnel syndrome (carpal tunnel release), cubital tunnel syndrome (simple decompression and ulnar nerve transposition), trigeminal neuralgia (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and pimozide for refractory cases, rTMS), HIV-related neuropathy (topical capsaicin), and central NeuP (certain TCAs, pregabalin, cannabinoids, and rTMS). Evidence about interventions for NeuP is frequently inconclusive or completely lacking. New randomized controlled trials about interventions for NeuP are necessary; they should address safety and use clear diagnostic criteria.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence.

blocked
Journal PloS one
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references) 135 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (135 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options. CONCLUSION: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Conservative versus operative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic deficit.

blocked
Authors Avilés C , Flores S , Molina M
Journal Medwave
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 6 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (6 references) 4 Primary studies Primary studies (4 references)

Loading references information
Thoracolumbar burst fractures account for up to 17% of major spinal fractures. Both conservative and operative treatments are widely used in clinical practice to manage thoracolumbar burst fractures. Previous studies showed good functional results with both treatments, but surgical approach has been associated with higher cost and risks of causing unnecessary adverse effects. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including four randomized trials We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded that operative treatment may decrease the risk of neurologic impairment, but in turn, could increase the risk of general complications. It is unclear whether there are differences in pain reduction, improvement in function and quality of life, need for subsequent surgery or radiographic progression of kyphosis in both groups.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Health benefits of tai chi: What is the evidence?

blocked
Journal Canadian Family Physician
Year 2016
Links Pubmed

This article includes 99 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (99 references) 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence on the health benefits of tai chi.Sources Of Information: A literature review was conducted on the benefits of tai chi for 25 specific conditions, as well as for general health and fitness, to update a 2014 review of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews and recent clinical trials were assessed and organized into 5 different groups: evidence of benefit as excellent, good, fair, or preliminary, or evidence of no direct benefit.Main Message: During the past 45 years more than 500 trials and 120 systematic reviews have been published on the health benefits of tai chi. Systematic reviews of tai chi for specific conditions indicate excellent evidence of benefit for preventing falls, osteoarthritis, Parkinson disease, rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and improving cognitive capacity in older adults. There is good evidence of benefit for depression, cardiac and stroke rehabilitation, and dementia. There is fair evidence of benefit for improving quality of life for cancer patients, fibromyalgia, hypertension, and osteoporosis. Current evidence indicates no direct benefit for diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or chronic heart failure. Systematic reviews of general health and fitness benefits show excellent evidence of benefit for improving balance and aerobic capacity in those with poor fitness. There is good evidence for increased strength in the lower limbs. There is fair evidence for increased well-being and improved sleep. There were no studies that found tai chi worsened a condition. A recent systematic review on the safety of tai chi found adverse events were typically minor and primarily musculoskeletal; no intervention-related serious adverse events have been reported.CONCLUSION: There is abundant evidence on the health and fitness effects of tai chi. Based on this, physicians can now offer evidence-based recommendations to their patients, noting that tai chi is still an area of active research, and patients should continue to receive medical follow-up for any clinical conditions.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

An evidence map of the effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes.

blocked
Journal Systematic reviews
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 100 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (100 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: This evidence map describes the volume and focus of Tai Chi research reporting health outcomes. Originally developed as a martial art, Tai Chi is typically taught as a series of slow, low-impact movements that integrate the breath, mind, and physical activity to achieve greater awareness and a sense of well-being. METHODS: The evidence map is based on a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched 11 electronic databases from inception to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted with topic experts. We used a bubble plot to graphically display clinical topics, literature size, number of reviews, and a broad estimate of effectiveness. RESULTS: The map is based on 107 systematic reviews. Two thirds of the reviews were published in the last five years. The topics with the largest number of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were general health benefits (51 RCTs), psychological well-being (37 RCTs), interventions for older adults (31 RCTs), balance (27 RCTs), hypertension (18 RCTs), fall prevention (15 RCTs), and cognitive performance (11 RCTs). The map identified a number of areas with evidence of a potentially positive treatment effect on patient outcomes, including Tai Chi for hypertension, fall prevention outside of institutions, cognitive performance, osteoarthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pain, balance confidence, and muscle strength. However, identified reviews cautioned that firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to methodological limitations in the original studies and/or an insufficient number of existing research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Tai Chi has been applied in diverse clinical areas, and for a number of these, systematic reviews have indicated promising results. The evidence map provides a visual overview of Tai Chi research volume and content. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009907.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews.

Journal BMC medicine
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 93 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (93 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Numerous, often multi-faceted regimens are available for treating complex wounds, yet the evidence of these interventions is recondite across the literature. We aimed to identify effective interventions to treat complex wounds through an overview of systematic reviews. METHODS: MEDLINE (OVID interface, 1946 until October 26, 2012), EMBASE (OVID interface, 1947 until October 26, 2012), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 10 of 12, 2012) were searched on October 26, 2012. Systematic reviews that examined adults receiving care for their complex wounds were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed study quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS: Overall, 99 systematic reviews were included after screening 6,200 titles and abstracts and 422 full-texts; 54 were systematic reviews with a meta-analysis (including data on over 54,000 patients) and 45 were systematic reviews without a meta-analysis. Overall, 44% of included reviews were rated as being of high quality (AMSTAR score ≥8). Based on data from systematic reviews including a meta-analysis with an AMSTAR score ≥8, promising interventions for complex wounds were identified. These included bandages or stockings (multi-layer, high compression) and wound cleansing for venous leg ulcers; four-layer bandages for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers; biologics, ultrasound, and hydrogel dressings for diabetic leg/foot ulcers; hydrocolloid dressings, electrotherapy, air-fluidized beds, and alternate foam mattresses for pressure ulcers; and silver dressings and ultrasound for unspecified mixed complex wounds. For surgical wound infections, topical negative pressure and vacuum-assisted closure were promising interventions, but this was based on evidence from moderate to low quality systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous interventions can be utilized for patients with varying types of complex wounds, yet few treatments were consistently effective across all outcomes throughout the literature. Clinicians and patients can use our results to tailor effective treatment according to type of complex wound. Network meta-analysis will be of benefit to decision-makers, as it will permit multiple treatment comparisons and ranking of the effectiveness of all interventions. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3.

Broad synthesis / Guideline

Unclassified

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis.

Journal Osteoarthritis and cartilage / OARS, Osteoarthritis Research Society
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 17 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (17 references) 11 Primary studies Primary studies (11 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals worldwide. METHOD: Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March 2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores. RESULTS: Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise (land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training, and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin, cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein, glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal), rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular electrical stimulation). CONCLUSION: These evidence-based consensus recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke.

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 43 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (43 references) 7 Primary studies Primary studies (7 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Improving upper limb function is a core element of stroke rehabilitation needed to maximise patient outcomes and reduce disability. Evidence about effects of individual treatment techniques and modalities is synthesised within many reviews. For selection of effective rehabilitation treatment, the relative effectiveness of interventions must be known. However, a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews in this area is currently lacking. OBJECTIVES: To carry out a Cochrane overview by synthesising systematic reviews of interventions provided to improve upper limb function after stroke. METHODS: Search methods: We comprehensively searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; the Database of Reviews of Effects; and PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews) (June 2013). We also contacted review authors in an effort to identify further relevant reviews.Selection criteria: We included Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with stroke comparing upper limb interventions with no treatment, usual care or alternative treatments. Our primary outcome of interest was upper limb function; secondary outcomes included motor impairment and performance of activities of daily living. When we identified overlapping reviews, we systematically identified the most up-to-date and comprehensive review and excluded reviews that overlapped with this.Data collection and analysis: Two overview authors independently applied the selection criteria, excluding reviews that were superseded by more up-to-date reviews including the same (or similar) studies. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of reviews (using a modified version of the AMSTAR tool) and extracted data. Quality of evidence within each comparison in each review was determined using objective criteria (based on numbers of participants, risk of bias, heterogeneity and review quality) to apply GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) levels of evidence. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We systematically tabulated the effects of interventions and used quality of evidence to determine implications for clinical practice and to make recommendations for future research. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches identified 1840 records, from which we included 40 completed reviews (19 Cochrane; 21 non-Cochrane), covering 18 individual interventions and dose and setting of interventions. The 40 reviews contain 503 studies (18,078 participants). We extracted pooled data from 31 reviews related to 127 comparisons. We judged the quality of evidence to be high for 1/127 comparisons (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) demonstrating no benefit for outcomes of activities of daily living (ADLs)); moderate for 49/127 comparisons (covering seven individual interventions) and low or very low for 77/127 comparisons.Moderate-quality evidence showed a beneficial effect of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), mental practice, mirror therapy, interventions for sensory impairment, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice, suggesting that these may be effective interventions; moderate-quality evidence also indicated that unilateral arm training may be more effective than bilateral arm training. Information was insufficient to reveal the relative effectiveness of different interventions.Moderate-quality evidence from subgroup analyses comparing greater and lesser doses of mental practice, repetitive task training and virtual reality demonstrates a beneficial effect for the group given the greater dose, although not for the group given the smaller dose; however tests for subgroup differences do not suggest a statistically significant difference between these groups. Future research related to dose is essential.Specific recommendations for future research are derived from current evidence. These recommendations include but are not limited to adequately powered, high-quality RCTs to confirm the benefit of CIMT, mental practice, mirror therapy, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice; high-quality RCTs to explore the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), tDCS, hands-on therapy, music therapy, pharmacological interventions and interventions for sensory impairment; and up-to-date reviews related to biofeedback, Bobath therapy, electrical stimulation, reach-to-grasp exercise, repetitive task training, strength training and stretching and positioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of overlapping reviews related to interventions to improve upper limb function following stroke have been identified, and this overview serves to signpost clinicians and policy makers toward relevant systematic reviews to support clinical decisions, providing one accessible, comprehensive document, which should support clinicians and policy makers in clinical decision making for stroke rehabilitation.Currently, no high-quality evidence can be found for any interventions that are currently used as part of routine practice, and evidence is insufficient to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness of interventions. Effective collaboration is urgently needed to support large, robust RCTs of interventions currently used routinely within clinical practice. Evidence related to dose of interventions is particularly needed, as this information has widespread clinical and research implications.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Evidence Map of Mindfulness

Book VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program Reports
Year 2014
Links Pubmed hsrd.research.va.gov

This article includes 81 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (81 references)

Loading references information
This evidence map provides an overview of “mindfulness” intervention research and describes its volume and focus. It summarizes patient outcomes as reported in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trial evidence. We searched 10 electronic databases to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted topic experts. We used a bubble plot as a visual overview of the distribution of evidence and synthesized results narratively in an executive summary. In total, 81 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and the largest review included 109 mindfulness RCTs. Most research is available for general overviews on health benefits or psychological wellbeing. Reviews on chronic illness, depression, substance use, somatization, distress, and mental illness included 10 or more RCTs. Reviews suggest differential effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and other mindfulness-based interventions, and definitions of “mindfulness-based” varied. The most consistent effect was reported for depression but published meta-analyses also indicated effects compared to passive control of MBSR on overall health, chronic illness, and psychological variables; MBCT for mental illness; and mindfulness interventions for somatization disorders. Limited evidence is also available for mindfulness interventions for pain, anxiety, and psychosis compared to passive control groups. More detail is provided for priority areas post-traumatic stress disorder, stress, depression, and wellness. The evidence map provides a broad overview (not detailed or definitive effectiveness evidence) over the existing research to help interpret the state of the evidence to inform policy and clinical decision making.