Bioethics has become a common course of study in medical schools, other health professional schools, and graduate and undergraduate programs. An analysis of past ethical scandals, as well as the bioethics apparatus that emerged in response to them, is often central to the discussion of bioethical questions. This historical perspective on bioethics is invaluable and demonstrates how, for example, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study was inherently racist and how other experiments exploited mentally disabled and other disadvantaged persons. However, such instruction can resemble so-called Whig history, in which a supposedly more enlightened mindset is seen as having replaced the "bad old days" of physicians behaving immorally. Bioethical discourse-both in the classroom and in practice-should be accompanied by efforts to historicize but not minimize past ethical transgressions. That is, bioethics needs to emphasize why and how such events occurred rather than merely condemning them with an air of moral superiority. Such instruction can reveal the complicated historical circumstances that led physician-researchers (some of whom were actually quite progressive in their thinking) to embark on projects that seem so unethical in hindsight. Such an approach is not meant to exonerate past transgressions but rather to explain them. In this manner, students and practitioners of bioethics can better appreciate how modern health professionals may be susceptible to the same types of pressures, misguided thinking, and conflicts of interest that sometimes led their predecessors astray.

Treat-to-target therapy is effective for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but long-term results of continued targeted treatment are lacking.

Although clinical factors affecting a person's susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection are well-understood, little is known about what drives differences in incidence across long-term care settings.

Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatment options for the same condition and may be useful for developing clinical practice guidelines.

In 2014, only 26 states and the District of Columbia chose to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansions for low-income adults.

Clinicians and patients need updated evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of diabetes medications to make informed treatment choices.

Update of the 2009 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and the 2007 recommendation on aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC).

Evidence indicates that aspirin is effective for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) but also increases the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) and cerebral hemorrhages.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States.