Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 33

  • Access

Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments

  • Jay P. Singh (a1), Seena Fazel (a2), Ralitza Gueorguieva (a3) and Alec Buchanan (a4)

Abstract

Background

Rates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.

Aims

To analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.

Method

A systematic search of databases (1995–2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.

Results

Information was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.

Conclusions

After controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.

  • View HTML

      • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

COPYRIGHT: © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2014 

Corresponding author

Dr Jay P. Singh, Psychiatric/Psychological Service, Department of Justice, Feldstrasse 42, 8004 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: jaysinghzurich@gmail.com

Footnotes

Hide All

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 Otto, R, Douglas, K. Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment. Routledge, 2010.
2 Conroy, MA, Murrie, DC. Forensic Assessment of Violence Risk. Wiley, 2007.
3 Buchanan, A, Binder, R, Norko, M, Swartz, M. Psychiatric violence risk assessment. Am J Psychiatry 2012; 169: 340.
4 Higgins, N, Watts, D, Bindman, J, Slade, M, Thornicroft, G. Assessing violence risk in general adult psychiatry. Psychiatr Bull 2005; 29: 131–3.
5 Tolman, A, Mullendore, K. Risk evaluations for the courts: is service quality a function of specialization? Prof Psychol Res Prac 2003; 34: 225–32.
6 Viljoen, JL, McLachlan, K, Vincent, GM. Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and adult offenders: a survey of clinical practices. Assessment 2010; 17: 377–95.
7 Tyrer, P. An agitation of contrary opinions. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 190: s1–2.
8 Hart, SD, Michie, C, Cooke, DJ. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments. Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of violence. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 190: s60–5.
9 Cook, N. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 2007; 115: 928–35.
10 Singh, JP, Grann, M, Fazel, S. A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol Rev 2011; 31: 499–513.
11 Helmus, L, Hanson, RK, Thornton, D, Babchishin, KM, Harris, AJR. Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav 2012; 39: 1148–71.
12 Looman, J. Comparison of two risk assessment instruments for sexual offenders. Sex Abuse 2006; 18: 193–206.
13 Helmus, L, Hanson, K, Thornton, D. Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on recidivism norms. Forum 2009; 21: 38–45.
14 Mossman, D. Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sex Abuse 2006; 18: 41–63.
15 Singh, JP, Fazel, S. Forensic risk assessment: a metareview. Crim Justice Behav 2010; 37: 965–88.
16 Andrews, DA, Bonta, J. LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory – Revised. Multi-Health Systems, 1995.
17 Hare, RD. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised. Multi-Health Systems, 2003.
18 Quinsey, VL, Harris, GT, Rice, ME, Cormier, CA. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. American Psychological Association, 2006.
19 Harris, AJR, Phenix, A, Hanson, RK, Thornton, D. Static-99 Coding Rules: Revised 2003. Solicitor General Canada, 2003.
20 Webster, CD, Douglas, KS, Eaves, D, Hart, SD. HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence. Simon Fraser University, 1997.
21 Boer, DP, Hart, SD, Kropp, PR, Webster, CD. Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20. Professional Guidelines for Assessing Risk of Sexual Violence. Simon Fraser University, 1997.
22 Kropp, PR, Hart, SD, Webster, CD, Eaves, D. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA). Multi-Health Systems, 1999.
23 Borum, R, Bartel, P, Forth, A. Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY): Version 1.1. University of South Florida, 2003.
24 Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–74.
25 Arbach, K, Pueyo, AA. Violence risk assessment in mental disorders with the HCR-20. Papeles del Psicologo 2007; 28: 174–86.
26 Beggs, SM, Grace, RC. Psychopathy, intelligence, and recidivism in child molesters: evidence of an interaction effect. Crim Justice Behav 2008; 35: 683–95.
27 Bengtson, S. Is newer better? A cross-validation of the Static-2002 and the Risk Matrix 2000 in a Danish sample of sexual offenders. Psychol Crim Law 2008; 14: 85–106.
28 Caperton, JD. Predicting Recidivism among Sex Offenders: Utility of the STATIC-99, Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Sam Houston State University, 2005.
29 Dahle, KP. Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of criminal reoffense in a German prison sample: a comparative study of LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R. Int J Law Psychiatr 2006; 29: 431–42.
30 De Vogel, V, de Ruiter, C. The HCR-20 in personality disordered female offenders: a comparison with a matched sample of males. Clin Psychol Psychother 2005; 12: 226–40.
31 De Vogel, V, de Ruiter, C, van, Beek, Mead, G. Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static-99 in a Dutch sample of treated sex offenders. Law Hum Behav 2004; 28: 235–51.
32 Dempster, RJ. Prediction of Sexually Violent Recidivism: A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments. Simon Fraser University, 1998.
33 Dempster, RJ. Understanding Errors in Risk Assessment: The Application of Differential Prediction Methodology. Simon Fraser University, 2001.
34 Douglas, KS, Ogloff, JRP, Hart, SD. Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment among forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54: 1372–9.
35 Douglas, KS, Yeomans, M, Boer, DP. Comparative validity analysis of multiple measures of violence risk in a sample of criminal offenders. Crim Justice Behav 2005; 32: 479–510.
36 Eher, R, Rettenberger, M, Matthes, A. Aktuarische prognose bei Sexualstraftaetern [Actuarial predictions of sexual offenders]. Mschr Krim 2009; 92: 18–27.
37 Eher, R, Rettenberger, M, Schilling, F, Pfäfflin, F. Failure of Static-99 and SORAG to predict reoffense categories in relevant sexual offender subtypes: a prospective study. Sex Offend Treat 2008; 3: 1–14.
38 Folino, J, Almiron, M, Ricci, MA. Factores de riesgo de recidiva violenta en mujeres filicidas [Violent recidivism risk factor in filicidal women]. Vertex 2007; 18: 258–67.
39 Friendship, C, Mann, RE, Beech, AR. Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders in England and Wales. J Interpers Viol 2003; 18: 744–59.
40 Gammelgard, M, Koivisto, AM, Eronen, M, Kaltiala-Heino, R. The predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) among institutionalised adolescents. J Forensic Psychiatr Psychol 2008; 19: 352–70.
41 Gibas, AL, Kropp, PR, Hart, SD, Stewart, L. Validity of the SARA in a Canadian Sample of Incarcerated Adult Males. International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services, 2008.
42 Grann, M, Belfrage, H, Tengstrom, A. Actuarial assessment of risk for violence: predictive validity of the VRAG and the historical part of the HCR-20. Crim Justice Behav 2000; 27: 97–114.
43 Grann, M, Langstrom, N, Tengstrom, A, Kullgren, G. Psychopathy (PCL-R) predicts violent recidivism among criminal offenders with personality disorders in Sweden. Law Hum Behav 1999; 23: 205–17.
44 Gretton, H, Abramowitz, C. SAVRY: Contribution of Items and Scales to Clinical Risk Judgments and Criminal Outcomes. American Psychology Law Society, 2002.
45 Harris, GT, Rice, ME, Quinsey, VL, Lalumiere, ML, Boer, D, Lang, C. A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychol Assess 2003; 15: 413–25.
46 Helmus, LMD, Hanson, RK. Predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-2002 for sex offenders on community supervision. Sex Offend Treat 2007; 2: 1–14.
47 Hill, A, Habermann, N, Klusmann, D, Berner, W, Briken, P. Criminal recidivism in sexual homicide perpetrators. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2008; 52: 5–20.
48 Ho, H, Thomson, L, Darjee, R. Violence risk assessment: the use of the PCL-SV, HCR-20, and VRAG to predict violence in mentally disordered offenders discharged from a medium secure unit in Scotland. J Forensic Psychiatr Psychol 2009; 4: 523–41.
49 Jovanovic, AA, Tosevski, DL, Ivkonvic, M, Damjanovic, A, Gasic, MJ. Predicting violence in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Vojnosanit Pregl 2009; 66: 13–21.
50 Kingston, DA, Yates, PM, Firestone, P, Babchishin, K, Bradford, JM. Long-term predictive validity of the Risk Matrix 2000: a comparison with the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide. Sex Abuse 2008; 20: 466–84.
51 Kloezeman, KC. Violent Behavior on Inpatient Psychiatric Units: The HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment Scheme. University of Hawaii, 2004.
52 Kropp, PR, Hart, SD. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) guide: reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law Hum Behav 2000; 24: 101–18.
53 Lodewijks, HPB, Doreleijers, TAH, de Ruiter, C. SAVRY risk assessment in violent Dutch adolescents: relation to sentencing and recidivism. Crim Justice Behav 2008; 35: 696–709.
54 Lodewijks, HPB, de Ruiter, C, Doreleijers, TAH. Gender differences in violent outcome and risk assessment in adolescent offenders after residential treatment. Int J Forensic Ment Health 2008; 7: 105–41.
55 Lodewijks, HPB, Doreleijers, TAH, de Ruiter, C, Borum, R. Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) during residential treatment. Int J Law Psychiatr 2008; 31: 263–71.
56 Looman, J, Abracen, J. Comparison of measures of risk for recidivism in sexual offenders. J Interpers Viol 2010; 25: 791–807.
57 McEachran, A. The Predictive Validity of the PCL:YV and the SAVRY in a Population of Adolescent Offenders. Simon Fraser University, 2001.
58 Meyers, JR, Schmidt, F. Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders. Crim Justice Behav 2008; 35: 344–55.
59 Mills, JF, Kroner, DG. The effect of discordance among violence and general recidivism risk estimates on predictive accuracy. Crim Behav Ment Health 2006; 16: 155–66.
60 Morrissey, C, Hogue, T, Mooney, P, Allen, C, Johnston, S, Hollin, C, et al. Predictive validity of the PCL-R in offenders with intellectual disability in a high secure hospital setting: institutional aggression. J Forensic Psychiatr Psychol 2007; 18: 1–15.
61 Pedersen, L, Rasmussen, K, Elsass, P. Risk assessment: the value of structured professional judgments. Int J Forensic Ment Health 2010; 9: 74–81.
62 Polvi, NH. The Prediction of Violence in Pre-trial Forensic Patients: The Relative Efficacy of Statistical versus Clinical Predictions of Dangerousness. Simon Fraser University, 1999.
63 Reeves, KA, Kropp, PR, Cairns, K. An Independent Validation Study of the SARA. International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services, 2004.
64 Rettenberger, M, Eher, R. Predicting reoffense in sexual offender subtypes: a prospective validation study of the German version of the Sexual Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Sex Offend Treat 2007; 2: 1–12.
65 Rice, ME, Harris, GT. Men who molest their sexually immature daughters: is a special examination required? J Abnorm Psychol 2002; 111: 329–39.
66 Seto, MC, Barbaree, HE. Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offender recidivism. J Interpers Viol 1999; 14: 1235–48.
67 Snowden, RJ, Gray, NS, Taylor, J, MacCulloch, MJ. Actuarial prediction of violent recidivism in mentally disordered offenders. Psychol Med 2007; 37: 1539–49.
68 Snowden, RJ, Gray, NS, Taylor, J, Fitzgerald, S. Assessing risk of future violence among forensic psychiatric inpatients with the Classification of Violence Risk (COVR). Psychiatr Serv 2009; 60: 1522–6.
69 Viljoen, JL, Scalora, M, Cuadra, L, Bader, S, Chavez, V, Ullman, D, et al. Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually offended: a comparison of the J-SOAP-II, J-SORRAT-II, and SAVRY. Crim Justice Behav 2008; 35: 5–23.
70 Walkington, Z, O'Keeffe, C, Thomas, S. Predicting Violence Recidivism in Violent Juveniles: A UK Trial. HM Prison Service, 2006.
71 Wormith, JS, Olver, ME, Stevenson, HE, Girard, L. The long-term prediction of offender recidivism using diagnostic, personality, and risk/need approaches to offender assessment. Psychol Serv 2007; 4: 287–305.
72 Szmukler, G. Violence risk prediction in practice. Br J Psychiatry 2001; 178: 84–5.
73 Fazel, S, Singh, JP, Doll, H, Grann, M. The prediction of violence and antisocial behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of risk assessment instruments in 73 samples involving 24,827 individuals. BMJ 2012; 345: e4692.
74 Eastman, N, Adshead, G, Fox, S, Latham, R, Whyte, S. Forensic Psychiatry. Oxford University Press, 2012.
75 Bayes, T, Price, R. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Phil Trans Royal Society London 1763, 53: 370–418.
76 Arkes, HR. Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact. J Consult Clin Psychol 1981; 49: 323–30.
77 Arkes, HR. Costs and benefits of judgment errors: implications for debiasing. Psychol Bull 1991; 110: 486–98.
78 Guy, LS. Performance Indicators of the Structured Professional Judgment Approach for Assessing Risk for Violence to Others: A Meta-analytic Survey. Simon Fraser University, 2008.
79 Hilton, N, Carter, A, Harris, G, Sharpe, A. Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? J Interpers Viol 2008; 23: 171–88.
80 Lidz, C, Mulvey, E, Gardner, W. The accuracy of predictions of violence to others. JAMA 1993; 269: 1007–11.
81 McNiel, DE, Binder, RL. Correlates of accuracy in the assessment of psychiatric inpatients' risk of violence. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152: 901–6.
82 Rabinowitz, J, Garelik-Wyler, R. Accuracy and confidence in clinical assessment of psychiatric inpatients risk of violence. Int J Law Psychiatry 1999; 22: 99–106.
83 Dean, K, Walsh, E, Moran, P, Tyrer, P, Creed, F, Byford, S, et al. Violence in women with psychosis in the community: prospective study. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 264–70.
84 Singh, JP, Serper, M, Reinharth, J, Fazel, S. Structured assessment of violence risk in schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders: a systematic review of the validity, reliability, and item content of 10 available instruments. Schizophr Bull 2011; 37: 899–912.
85 Tversky, A, Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124–31.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
  • Cited by 33

  • Access

Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments

  • Jay P. Singh (a1), Seena Fazel (a2), Ralitza Gueorguieva (a3) and Alec Buchanan (a4)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

  • Cited by 33

  • Access

Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments

  • Jay P. Singh (a1), Seena Fazel (a2), Ralitza Gueorguieva (a3) and Alec Buchanan (a4)
Submit a response

eLetters

Getting Real about Risk

Matthew Large, Psychiatrist
28 March 2014

The recent meta-analysis by Singh et al. examined the proportion of violent people among those classified as high-risk, known as the positive predictive value (PPV). They found that PPV is highly variable between studies and is most strongly associated with the base rate of violence in the whole risk-assessed group (1). They conclude that risk assessment is not a reliable indicator of absolute risk. We agree. The increased focus on the PPV of high-risk categories is a welcome development because it leads to a consideration of the number of people who might need to be assessed as high-risk for every true positive (actually violent) person. The number needed to assess is often a more relevant measure than those derived from the receiver operator curve and it clearly illustrates the lack of meaning in recent debates about the extent to which group data applies to individuals (2) and the margins of error in particular risk predictions (3). However, we believe the debate about risk assessment nowneeds to move beyond abstract notions relating solely to probability. A probability after all is simply a number between 0 and 1, a number that isuninformative unless it is a probability of something specific.

Although not cited in the recent paper, we systematically examined PPV of risk categorization after making generous assumptions about the statistical power of risk assessment (4). Unlike the present paper, our paper focused on the main factor that actually determines base rates and thus PPV - the definition of violence according to violence severity. For example, using a risk assessment instrument with a sensitivity and specificity of 80% for the detection of different outcomes, the PPV for criminally violent behavior over a year by people with schizophrenia mightbe about 4% under optimal conditions, while the same figure for homicide would be 0.04%.

In the primary risk research, including that used by Singh et al. in the recent meta-analysis, a wide spectrum of violent events is amalgamatedinto an omnibus violent category. These events range from common assault all the way to homicide. Each of these diverse events has different base rates and consequences, with more severe violence having lower base rate but leading to greater losses.

Risk assessment in mental health should to start to consider the dimension of resulting loss. In areas outside mental health, risk is not aprobability but is a quantum of loss - that is why we pay our insurance premium in money, yet have little idea of the likelihood of the loss of our possessions. In our view any study that does not consider the magnitude of resulting loss should not really be thought of as a 'risk assessment' and more properly should be referred to as 'probability assessment'. While quantification of loss poses significant challenges, considering a definition of risk that includes the loss component re-emphasizes two complex, important and unanswered questions

i)What actual psychiatric interventions in terms of cost/side effects/benefits are indicated for those who are regarded as high-risk, and yet should be withheld from patients classified as low risk? If the harm we consider is not severe, no costly, restrictive or intrusive treatment can be justified. If the harm considered is severe, it will alsobe rare. Therefore what costly and intrusive intervention can be justified for the tiny proportion of false positives, or if the intervention is not costly or intrusive, why withhold it from low-risk patients, who will commit many of the future acts of violence? (5)ii)Is there evidence that an overall reduction in violence can be achieved by applying this cost/effective and acceptable intervention to a group who are more likely to offend while denying it to those who as a group less likely to offend? Will the additional resources spent on preventing violence by high-risk patients be justified in terms of harm reduction? (6)

At the end of the recent paper the authors recommend that risk assessments be provided with a qualification explaining their limitations.Here we agree as well. Perhaps it should be "this risk assessment providesan estimate of an uncertain probability of an unspecified event with no consideration of the consequences"

References

1.Singh JP, Fazel S, Gueorguieva R, Buchanan A. Rates of violence inpatients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 2014; 204: 180-7.2.Scurich N, Monahan J, John RS. Innumeracy and unpacking: bridging the nomothetic/idiographic divide in violence risk assessment. Law and human behavior. 2012; 36(6): 548-54.3.Hart SD, Michie C, Cooke DJ. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the 'margins of error' of group v. individual predictions of violence. The British journal of psychiatry Supplement. 2007; 49: s60-5.4.Large MM, Ryan CJ, Singh SP, Paton MB, Nielssen OB. The predictive value of risk categorization in schizophrenia. Harvard review of psychiatry. 2011; 19(1): 25-33.5.Large M, Ryan CJ. Screening for suicide: a comment on Steeg et al. Psychological medicine. 2012; 42(9): 2011-2; author reply 2-3.6.Wand T, Large M. Little evidence for the usefulness of violence risk assessment. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 2013; 202: 468.

 ... More

Conflict of interest: None declared

Write a reply

Back to top

Rates of Violence in Patients classified as high risk by assessment insruments

Manjeet S. Bhatia
07 March 2014

The article by Jay P. Singh and co-authors is an excellent one in highlighting the cautious interpretation of studies on rates of violence among psychiatric patients classified as High Risk.Not only there is huge variation, their interpretation without having the base rates is not appropriate. There are many other factors which influence the rates of violence e.g. setting (indoor or outdoor),pattern of patients in the setting (differ in psychiatric hospital and general hospital setting),typeof disorder ( schizophrenia /mood disorder/substance abuse),disorder variables (age- group, type of disorder,acute/chronic,co-morbid disorder present or absent, type and nature of treatment given),compliance variables (patient as well as family factors),type of assessment scale used (structured/standardized), prevalence of violent behaviour in community)and social variables linked to violent behaviour . More studies (country and disorder based after controlling different variables)are required to reach a definite conclusion.

 ... More

Conflict of interest: None declared

Write a reply

Back to top

×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *