The NLM value set authority center.

The Value Set Authority Center (VSAC) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM) provides downloadable access to all official versions of vocabulary value sets contained in the Clinical Quality Measures (CQMs) used in the certification criteria for electronic health record systems ("Meaningful Use" incentive program). Each value set consists of the numerical values (codes) and human-readable names (descriptions), drawn from standard vocabularies such as LOINC, RxNorm and SNOMED CT®, that are used to define clinical data elements used in clinical quality measures (e.g., patients with diabetes, tricyclic antidepressants). The content of the VSAC will gradually expand to incorporate value sets for other use cases, as well as for new measures and updates to existing measures.

Health and medication information resources on the World Wide Web.

Health care practitioners have increasingly used the Internet to obtain health and medication information. The vast number of Internet Web sites providing such information and concerns with their reliability makes it essential for users to carefully select and evaluate Web sites prior to use. To this end, this article reviews the general principles to consider in this process. Moreover, as cost may limit access to subscription-based health and medication information resources with established reputability, freely accessible online resources that may serve as an invaluable addition to one's reference collection are highlighted. These include government- and organization-sponsored resources (eg, US Food and Drug Administration Web site and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists' Drug Shortage Resource Center Web site, respectively) as well as commercial Web sites (eg, Medscape, Google Scholar). Familiarity with such online resources can assist health care professionals in their ability to efficiently navigate the Web and may potentially expedite the information gathering and decision-making process, thereby improving patient care.

Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case.

The scientific literature is a record of the search for truth. Publication of faked data diverts this search. The scientific community has a duty to warn people to ignore an article containing faked data and must try to prevent inadvertent citation of it. The scientific community accomplishes these tasks by publishing a retraction and linking it to the fraudulent article's citation in electronic indexes of the medical literature, such as PubMed. This mechanism is far from perfect, as shown by a case history of scientific fraud perpetrated by Eric Poehlman, PhD. His institution notified 3 journals that they had published tainted articles. Two journals failed to retract. The third journal retracted immediately, but other authors continued to cite the retracted article. Another duty of the scientific community is to verify the integrity of other articles published by the author of a fraudulent article. This task falls to the author's institution and requires coauthors to vouch for their article's integrity by convincing institutional investigators that the suspect author could not have altered the raw scientific data from their study. Two universities are currently investigating Poehlman's published research. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature requires governmental institutions that have the authority to investigate and punish guilty scientists and requires that research institutions investigate alleged fraud. It requires journal editors to issue a retraction when they learn that their journal has published a tainted article. It requires research institutions to accept their responsibility to investigate every article published by a scientist who has published even 1 fraudulent article. Finally, it requires authors to take pains to avoid citing retracted articles and to issue a correction when they inadvertently cite a retracted article.