In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate title for this article. Preferred titles are under thirty words.

Q: CONTEXT Pharmacist review of medication orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to prevent errors, and pharmacist consultation has reduced drug costs. However, whether pharmacist participation in the ICU at the time of drug prescribing reduces adverse events has not been studied.
OBJECTIVE To measure the effect of pharmacist participation on medical rounds in the ICU on the rate of preventable adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by ordering errors.
DESIGN Before-after comparison between phase 1 (baseline) and phase 2 (after intervention implemented) and phase 2 comparison with a control unit that did not receive the intervention.
SETTING A medical ICU (study unit) and a coronary care unit (control unit) in a large urban teaching hospital.
PATIENTS Seventy-five patients randomly selected from each of 3 groups: all admissions to the study unit from February 1, 1993, through July 31, 1993 (baseline) and all admissions to the study unit (postintervention) and control unit from October 1, 1994, through July 7, 1995. In addition, 50 patients were selected at random from the control unit during the baseline period.
INTERVENTION A senior pharmacist made rounds with the ICU team and remained in the ICU for consultation in the morning, and was available on call throughout the day.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Preventable ADEs due to ordering (prescribing) errors and the number, type, and acceptance of interventions made by the pharmacist. Preventable ADEs were identified by review of medical records of the randomly selected patients during both preintervention and postintervention phases. Pharmacists recorded all recommendations, which were then analyzed by type and acceptance.
RESULTS The rate of preventable ordering ADEs decreased by 66% from 10.4 per 1000 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-14) before the intervention to 3.5 (95% CI, 1-5; P<.001) after the intervention. In the control unit, the rate was essentially unchanged during the same time periods: 10.9 (95% CI, 6-16) and 12.4 (95% CI, 8-17) per 1000 patient-days. The pharmacist made 366 recommendations related to drug ordering, of which 362 (99%) were accepted by physicians.
CONCLUSIONS The presence of a pharmacist on rounds as a full member of the patient care team in a medical ICU was associated with a substantially lower rate of ADEs caused by prescribing errors. Nearly all the changes were readily accepted by physicians.

A: Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit.
****
Q: IMPORTANCE The need for surgery for the majority of patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures is unclear, but its use is increasing.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A pragmatic, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial, the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus Evaluation by Randomization (PROFHER) trial, recruited 250 patients aged 16 years or older (mean age, 66 years [range, 24-92 years]; 192 [77%] were female; and 249 [99.6%] were white) who presented at the orthopedic departments of 32 acute UK National Health Service hospitals between September 2008 and April 2011 within 3 weeks after sustaining a displaced fracture of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck. Patients were followed up for 2 years (up to April 2013) and 215 had complete follow-up data. The data for 231 patients (114 in surgical group and 117 in nonsurgical group) were included in the primary analysis.
INTERVENTIONS Fracture fixation or humeral head replacement were performed by surgeons experienced in these techniques. Nonsurgical treatment was sling immobilization. Standardized outpatient and community-based rehabilitation was provided to both groups.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (range, 0-48; higher scores indicate better outcomes) assessed during a 2-year period, with assessment and data collection at 6, 12, and 24 months. Sample size was based on a minimal clinically important difference of 5 points for the Oxford Shoulder Score. Secondary outcomes were the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), complications, subsequent therapy, and mortality.
RESULTS There was no significant mean treatment group difference in the Oxford Shoulder Score averaged over 2 years (39.07 points for the surgical group vs 38.32 points for the nonsurgical group; difference of 0.75 points [95% CI, -1.33 to 2.84 points]; P = .48) or at individual time points. There were also no significant between-group differences over 2 years in the mean SF-12 physical component score (surgical group: 1.77 points higher [95% CI, -0.84 to 4.39 points]; P = .18); the mean SF-12 mental component score (surgical group: 1.28 points lower [95% CI, -3.80 to 1.23 points]; P = .32); complications related to surgery or shoulder fracture (30 patients in surgical group vs 23 patients in nonsurgical group; P = .28), requiring secondary surgery to the shoulder (11 patients in both groups), and increased or new shoulder-related therapy (7 patients vs 4 patients, respectively; P = .58); and mortality (9 patients vs 5 patients; P = .27). Ten medical complications (2 cardiovascular events, 2 respiratory events, 2 gastrointestinal events, and 4 others) occurred in the surgical group during the postoperative hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures involving the surgical neck, there was no significant difference between surgical treatment compared with nonsurgical treatment in patient-reported clinical outcomes over 2 years following fracture occurrence. These results do not support the trend of increased surgery for patients with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus.
TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN50850043.

A: Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: the PROFHER randomized clinical trial.
****
Q: Electro-magnetic fields and wireless technology are part of modern life. The use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines for clarification of internal human structures and function in healthcare is increasing. The rapid development of wireless devices, their miniaturization and their application as clinical tools creates an expanding intersection zone. Although safety standards for devices in MRI machines have been previously published, it is not clear that newer wireless technologies, including devices used in Medical Body Area Networks (MBAN) have been rigorously tested or disclosed. We undertook a review of the clinical scientific literature and the United States Food and Drug Administration adverse events database to discover whether this is a significant issue. There are currently no published studies specifically addressing the safety of wireless devices potentially used in MBAN in MRI machines. We suggest the addition of a research track to clarify the safety of MBAN devices in MRI machines. Informed design of current and future MBAN components, devices and systems can avoid potential patient adverse events due to the un-intended consequences of the concurrent use of these technologies in MRI machines.

A:
A literature review of the safety of medical body area network devices in magnetic resonance imaging
****