Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting—A Propensity Matched, Case–Control Feasibility Study
Abstract Background Effective, inexpensive, and low-risk interventions are needed for patients with nonspecific persistent low back pain (NS-PLBP) who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a multidimensional behavioral self-management approach that has...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) Mass.), 2020-10, Vol.21 (10), p.2061-2070 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2070 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 2061 |
container_title | Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Ussing, Kasper Kjaer, Per Smith, Anne Kent, Peter Jensen, Rikke K Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce |
description | Abstract
Background
Effective, inexpensive, and low-risk interventions are needed for patients with nonspecific persistent low back pain (NS-PLBP) who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a multidimensional behavioral self-management approach that has demonstrated promising results in primary care and has not been tested in secondary care.
Objective
To investigate the effect of CFT and compare it with usual care for patients with NS-PLBP.
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
A secondary care spine center.
Subjects
Thirty-nine patients received a CFT intervention and were matched using propensity scoring to 185 control patients receiving usual care.
Methods
The primary outcome was Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0–100 scale) score. Group-level differences at six- and 12-month follow-up were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression.
Results
At six-month follow-up, a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in disability favored the CFT group (–20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –27.2 to –14.2, P < 0.001). Significant differences also occurred for LBP and leg pain, fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing in favor of CFT. At 12-month follow-up, the difference in disability was smaller and no longer statistically significant (–8.1, 95% CI = –17.4 to 1.2, P = 0.086). Differences in leg pain intensity and fear remained significantly in favor of CFT. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in the CFT group at six- (93% vs 66%) and 12-month (84% vs 52%) follow-up.
Conclusions
These findings support that CFT is beneficial for patients with NS-PLBP who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Subsequent randomized controlled trials could incorporate booster sessions, which may result in larger effects at 12-month follow-up. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/pm/pnaa034 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2384205172</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A700452406</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/pm/pnaa034</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A700452406</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-4f70a002fcc8df2373c086a914624223ff6bbbf663dbf294bccee58dfa17d2bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ktFqFDEUhgex2Fq98QEkIEIRt80kmczs5Tq4Wlh1ofV6yGROdlNnkjTJtOxd30GfwQfrk5hlV1ERSSAnh-_8JD9_lj3L8WmOp_TMDWfOCIEpe5Ad5QXhE8Zp-XBfE1oWh9njEK4wzjmr6KPskBJC8qJgR9n32q6MjvoG0Hw0MmprRI8u1-CF2yBlPVqCdT2gWx3X6KM1wYHUSsvU90GHCCaihb1Fb4T8gpZCG5S2QBcgremE36BaeEjXGLVZ3d99m6Gltw5M0HGDPogo19C9TlCA-7uvtTXR2x7NQQTd6n7LXMSx2zzJDpToAzzdn8fZ5_nby_r9ZPHp3Xk9W0wkY1WcMFVigTFRUladSj-nEldcTHPGCSOEKsXbtlWc065VZMpaKQGKhIq87Ejb0uPsZKfrvL0eIcRm0EFC3wsDdgwNoRUjuMhLktAXf6FXdvTJvUSxMpnOcfUbtRI9NNooG72QW9FmVmLMCsIwT9TpP6i0Ohh0MhKUTv0_Bl7tBqS3IXhQjfN6SHY3OW62oWjc0OxDkeDn-5eO7QDdL_RnChLwcgfY0f1P6Ac33MJQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2473756082</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting—A Propensity Matched, Case–Control Feasibility Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ussing, Kasper ; Kjaer, Per ; Smith, Anne ; Kent, Peter ; Jensen, Rikke K ; Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit ; O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</creator><creatorcontrib>Ussing, Kasper ; Kjaer, Per ; Smith, Anne ; Kent, Peter ; Jensen, Rikke K ; Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit ; O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Background
Effective, inexpensive, and low-risk interventions are needed for patients with nonspecific persistent low back pain (NS-PLBP) who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a multidimensional behavioral self-management approach that has demonstrated promising results in primary care and has not been tested in secondary care.
Objective
To investigate the effect of CFT and compare it with usual care for patients with NS-PLBP.
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
A secondary care spine center.
Subjects
Thirty-nine patients received a CFT intervention and were matched using propensity scoring to 185 control patients receiving usual care.
Methods
The primary outcome was Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0–100 scale) score. Group-level differences at six- and 12-month follow-up were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression.
Results
At six-month follow-up, a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in disability favored the CFT group (–20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –27.2 to –14.2, P < 0.001). Significant differences also occurred for LBP and leg pain, fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing in favor of CFT. At 12-month follow-up, the difference in disability was smaller and no longer statistically significant (–8.1, 95% CI = –17.4 to 1.2, P = 0.086). Differences in leg pain intensity and fear remained significantly in favor of CFT. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in the CFT group at six- (93% vs 66%) and 12-month (84% vs 52%) follow-up.
Conclusions
These findings support that CFT is beneficial for patients with NS-PLBP who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Subsequent randomized controlled trials could incorporate booster sessions, which may result in larger effects at 12-month follow-up.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-2375</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-4637</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnaa034</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32221554</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Back pain ; Care and treatment ; Case-Control Studies ; Clinical trials ; Cognition ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive therapy ; Fear ; Feasibility Studies ; Humans ; Leg ; Low back pain ; Low Back Pain - therapy ; Pain Measurement ; Primary care ; Psychological aspects ; Secondary Care ; Spine ; Statistical analysis ; Testing ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2020-10, Vol.21 (10), p.2061-2070</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Oxford University Press</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-4f70a002fcc8df2373c086a914624223ff6bbbf663dbf294bccee58dfa17d2bb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-4f70a002fcc8df2373c086a914624223ff6bbbf663dbf294bccee58dfa17d2bb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32221554$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ussing, Kasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kjaer, Per</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kent, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Rikke K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</creatorcontrib><title>Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting—A Propensity Matched, Case–Control Feasibility Study</title><title>Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)</title><addtitle>Pain Med</addtitle><description>Abstract
Background
Effective, inexpensive, and low-risk interventions are needed for patients with nonspecific persistent low back pain (NS-PLBP) who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a multidimensional behavioral self-management approach that has demonstrated promising results in primary care and has not been tested in secondary care.
Objective
To investigate the effect of CFT and compare it with usual care for patients with NS-PLBP.
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
A secondary care spine center.
Subjects
Thirty-nine patients received a CFT intervention and were matched using propensity scoring to 185 control patients receiving usual care.
Methods
The primary outcome was Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0–100 scale) score. Group-level differences at six- and 12-month follow-up were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression.
Results
At six-month follow-up, a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in disability favored the CFT group (–20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –27.2 to –14.2, P < 0.001). Significant differences also occurred for LBP and leg pain, fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing in favor of CFT. At 12-month follow-up, the difference in disability was smaller and no longer statistically significant (–8.1, 95% CI = –17.4 to 1.2, P = 0.086). Differences in leg pain intensity and fear remained significantly in favor of CFT. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in the CFT group at six- (93% vs 66%) and 12-month (84% vs 52%) follow-up.
Conclusions
These findings support that CFT is beneficial for patients with NS-PLBP who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Subsequent randomized controlled trials could incorporate booster sessions, which may result in larger effects at 12-month follow-up.</description><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive therapy</subject><subject>Fear</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Leg</subject><subject>Low back pain</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - therapy</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Secondary Care</subject><subject>Spine</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Testing</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1526-2375</issn><issn>1526-4637</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ktFqFDEUhgex2Fq98QEkIEIRt80kmczs5Tq4Wlh1ofV6yGROdlNnkjTJtOxd30GfwQfrk5hlV1ERSSAnh-_8JD9_lj3L8WmOp_TMDWfOCIEpe5Ad5QXhE8Zp-XBfE1oWh9njEK4wzjmr6KPskBJC8qJgR9n32q6MjvoG0Hw0MmprRI8u1-CF2yBlPVqCdT2gWx3X6KM1wYHUSsvU90GHCCaihb1Fb4T8gpZCG5S2QBcgremE36BaeEjXGLVZ3d99m6Gltw5M0HGDPogo19C9TlCA-7uvtTXR2x7NQQTd6n7LXMSx2zzJDpToAzzdn8fZ5_nby_r9ZPHp3Xk9W0wkY1WcMFVigTFRUladSj-nEldcTHPGCSOEKsXbtlWc065VZMpaKQGKhIq87Ejb0uPsZKfrvL0eIcRm0EFC3wsDdgwNoRUjuMhLktAXf6FXdvTJvUSxMpnOcfUbtRI9NNooG72QW9FmVmLMCsIwT9TpP6i0Ohh0MhKUTv0_Bl7tBqS3IXhQjfN6SHY3OW62oWjc0OxDkeDn-5eO7QDdL_RnChLwcgfY0f1P6Ac33MJQ</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Ussing, Kasper</creator><creator>Kjaer, Per</creator><creator>Smith, Anne</creator><creator>Kent, Peter</creator><creator>Jensen, Rikke K</creator><creator>Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit</creator><creator>O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting—A Propensity Matched, Case–Control Feasibility Study</title><author>Ussing, Kasper ; Kjaer, Per ; Smith, Anne ; Kent, Peter ; Jensen, Rikke K ; Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit ; O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-4f70a002fcc8df2373c086a914624223ff6bbbf663dbf294bccee58dfa17d2bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive therapy</topic><topic>Fear</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Leg</topic><topic>Low back pain</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - therapy</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Secondary Care</topic><topic>Spine</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Testing</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ussing, Kasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kjaer, Per</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kent, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Rikke K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ussing, Kasper</au><au>Kjaer, Per</au><au>Smith, Anne</au><au>Kent, Peter</au><au>Jensen, Rikke K</au><au>Schiøttz-Christensen, Berit</au><au>O’Sullivan, Peter Bruce</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting—A Propensity Matched, Case–Control Feasibility Study</atitle><jtitle>Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)</jtitle><addtitle>Pain Med</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2061</spage><epage>2070</epage><pages>2061-2070</pages><issn>1526-2375</issn><eissn>1526-4637</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Background
Effective, inexpensive, and low-risk interventions are needed for patients with nonspecific persistent low back pain (NS-PLBP) who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a multidimensional behavioral self-management approach that has demonstrated promising results in primary care and has not been tested in secondary care.
Objective
To investigate the effect of CFT and compare it with usual care for patients with NS-PLBP.
Design
Case–control study.
Setting
A secondary care spine center.
Subjects
Thirty-nine patients received a CFT intervention and were matched using propensity scoring to 185 control patients receiving usual care.
Methods
The primary outcome was Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0–100 scale) score. Group-level differences at six- and 12-month follow-up were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression.
Results
At six-month follow-up, a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in disability favored the CFT group (–20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –27.2 to –14.2, P < 0.001). Significant differences also occurred for LBP and leg pain, fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing in favor of CFT. At 12-month follow-up, the difference in disability was smaller and no longer statistically significant (–8.1, 95% CI = –17.4 to 1.2, P = 0.086). Differences in leg pain intensity and fear remained significantly in favor of CFT. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in the CFT group at six- (93% vs 66%) and 12-month (84% vs 52%) follow-up.
Conclusions
These findings support that CFT is beneficial for patients with NS-PLBP who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Subsequent randomized controlled trials could incorporate booster sessions, which may result in larger effects at 12-month follow-up.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>32221554</pmid><doi>10.1093/pm/pnaa034</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-2375 |
ispartof | Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2020-10, Vol.21 (10), p.2061-2070 |
issn | 1526-2375 1526-4637 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2384205172 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Back pain Care and treatment Case-Control Studies Clinical trials Cognition Cognitive ability Cognitive therapy Fear Feasibility Studies Humans Leg Low back pain Low Back Pain - therapy Pain Measurement Primary care Psychological aspects Secondary Care Spine Statistical analysis Testing Treatment Outcome |
title | Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting—A Propensity Matched, Case–Control Feasibility Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T02%3A24%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cognitive%20Functional%20Therapy%20for%20People%20with%20Nonspecific%20Persistent%20Low%20Back%20Pain%20in%20a%20Secondary%20Care%20Setting%E2%80%94A%20Propensity%20Matched,%20Case%E2%80%93Control%20Feasibility%20Study&rft.jtitle=Pain%20medicine%20(Malden,%20Mass.)&rft.au=Ussing,%20Kasper&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2061&rft.epage=2070&rft.pages=2061-2070&rft.issn=1526-2375&rft.eissn=1526-4637&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/pm/pnaa034&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA700452406%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2473756082&rft_id=info:pmid/32221554&rft_galeid=A700452406&rft_oup_id=10.1093/pm/pnaa034&rfr_iscdi=true |