In the realm of health care, privacy protections are needed to preserve patients' dignity and prevent possible harms. Ten years ago, to address these concerns as well as set guidelines for ethical health research, Congress called for a set of federal standards now known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In its 2009 report, Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information concludes that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not protect privacy as well as it should, and that it impedes important health research.

On March 3-4, 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders held a workshop in Washington, DC, bringing together key stakeholders to discuss opportunities for improving the integrity, efficiency, and validity of clinical trials for nervous system disorders. Participants in the workshop represented a range of diverse perspectives, including individuals not normally associated with traditional clinical trials. The purpose of this workshop was to generate discussion about not only what is feasible now, but what may be possible with the implementation of cutting-edge technologies in the future.

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

50 Studies Every Internist Should Know presents key studies that shape today's practice of internal medicine. Selected using a rigorous methodology, the studies cover topics including: preventative medicine, endocrinology, hematology and oncology, musculoskeletal diseases, nephrology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases, cardiology, pulmonology, geriatrics and palliative care, and mental health. For each study, a concise summary is presented with an emphasis on the results and limitations of the study, and its implications for practice. An illustrative clinical case concludes each review, followed by brief information on other relevant studies. This book is a must-read for health care professionals and anyone who wants to learn more about the data behind clinical practice.

50 Studies Every Doctor Should Know presents summaries and analysis of 50 studies that have shaped the practice of medicine. Covering a wide array of topics - from dieting to cardiovascular disease, insomnia to obstetrics - this is a must-read for health care professionals and anyone who wants to learn about the data behind clinical practice.

Collaborations of physicians and researchers with industry can provide valuable benefits to society, particularly in the translation of basic scientific discoveries to new therapies and products. Recent reports and news stories have, however, documented disturbing examples of relationships and practices that put at risk the integrity of medical research, the objectivity of professional education, the quality of patient care, the soundness of clinical practice guidelines, and the public's trust in medicine. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice provides a comprehensive look at conflict of interest in medicine. It offers principles to inform the design of policies to identify, limit, and manage conflicts of interest without damaging constructive collaboration with industry. It calls for both short-term actions and long-term commitments by institutions and individuals, including leaders of academic medical centers, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, government agencies, and drug, device, and pharmaceutical companies. Failure of the medical community to take convincing action on conflicts of interest invites additional legislative or regulatory measures that may be overly broad or unduly burdensome. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice makes several recommendations for strengthening conflict of interest policies and curbing relationships that create risks with little benefit. The book will serve as an invaluable resource for individuals and organizations committed to high ethical standards in all realms of medicine.

This classic reference, now updated with the newest applications and results, addresses the fundamentals of such trials based on sound scientific methodology, statistical principles, and years of accumulated experience by the three authors.