For instance, the therapists in the stroke, SCI, joints, and TBI PBE studies who identified “active ingredients” in their treatments were not brute

empiricists. They were guided by theoretical frameworks offered in their training and by their professional organizations.103 and 104 The tripartite structure of treatment theories stressed in one of our articles13 is not incompatible with current clinical thinking; in certain respects, it is an explication and systematization of the reasoning of which all good clinicians avail themselves. Still, the therapists who in the PBE studies developed the point of care forms to record session content may have been guided by incompatible theories and issues of convenience in identifying DAPT in vitro and quantifying the ingredients actually delivered. The convenience of labels derived from the Tenofovir ic50 activity limitation or participation restriction being treated may have resulted in a bottom-up classification that was guided less by treatment theories than by consensual labeling of categories of rehabilitation goals, even if in the development of the lists of activities and interventions the therapists discovered that the same label (eg, “gait treatment”) covered a variety of treatments, and that

identical treatments may go under different names at various sites. Conversely, a theory is an attempt to use generalizations to organize and explain multiple empirical observations; therefore, a taxonomy derived from treatment theories at least has an indirect, partial, or incomplete empirical basis, especially where theorizing about mechanisms of action is ahead of our ability to DNA ligase study the causal chain of steps occurring in the body or brain that links treatment ingredients to outcomes. Regardless

of its derivation, any taxonomy must be put to work in the real world to demonstrate that it can be applied to empirical data and to show that it is fruitful in research that assesses whether the outcomes of treatment support theory-driven hypotheses.10 Classifications of health care interventions have been designed for a number of purposes: information retrieval (eg, Medical Subject Headings terms), reporting and billing of professional activities (CPT), clinical applications (eg, assignment of staff, design of treatment plans), education, and research. The intended purpose, to a degree, defines the design and detail level of a classification system.105 The simplest ones have a limited number of interventions, grouped in ≤10 classes, all arranged along a single axis (precoordination, in taxonomic terminology). More complex ones use multiple axes (postcoordination), allow multiple “parents” for taxa at intermediate levels of classification, or provide for modifiers and/or qualifiers.