The 2014 American Diabetes Association guidelines denote four means of diagnosing diabetes. The first of these is a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >6.5%. This literature review summarizes studies (n=47) in the USA examining the significance, strengths, and limitations of using HbA1c as a diagnostic tool for diabetes, relative to other available means. Due to the relatively recent adoption of HbA1c as a diabetes mellitus diagnostic tool, a hybrid systematic, truncated review of the literature was implemented. Based on these studies, we conclude that HbA1c screening for diabetes has been found to be convenient and effective in diagnosing diabetes. HbA1c screening is particularly helpful in community-based and acute care settings where tests requiring fasting are not practical. Using HbA1c to diagnose diabetes also has some limitations. For instance, HbA1c testing may underestimate the prevalence of diabetes, particularly among whites. Because this bias differs by racial group, prevalence and resulting estimates of health disparities based on HbA1c screening differ from those based on other methods of diagnosis. In addition, existing evidence suggests that HbA1c screening may not be valid in certain subgroups, such as children, women with gestational diabetes, patients with human immunodeficiency virus, and those with prediabetes. Further guidelines are needed to clarify the appropriate use of HbA1c screening in these populations.

Pharmacy informatics is defined as the use and integration of data, information, knowledge, technology, and automation in the medication-use process for the purpose of improving health outcomes. The term “big data” has been coined and is often defined in three V’s: volume, velocity, and variety. This paper describes three major areas in which pharmacy utilizes big data, including: 1) informed decision making (clinical pathways and clinical practice guidelines); 2) improved care delivery in health care settings such as hospitals and community pharmacy practice settings; and 3) quality performance measurement for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and medication management activities such as tracking medication adherence and medication reconciliation.

No abstract

determine what exactly it has to do with archives: it does not focus on them in either the professional or the academic sense.The rest of the essay is a cacophony of niche terminology and phrases (e.g., "mediatic," "hybrid meta-space," and "hyperproletariat") that serve to paper over the authors' logical leaps in their self-congratulatory encouragement of academic piracy. It is ironic that they do not consider their own privilege and positionalities in publishing in an open access monograph.While Mars and Medak's follow-up is disappointing, the first two chapters of Archives are a worthy endeavor; especially for archivists and readers who have not felt themselves and their work represented in discussions about "the archive." This review cannot evaluate Archives within the In Search of Media series, but it seems to me that Mars and Medak's chapter may have found a better home in a volume about scholarly communication or copyright. Interested readers may find the entire text available for free in open access format on meson press's website.