Given a passage with a context and an answer, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Input: Consider Input: Context: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a well-established, widely accepted method in both clinical and experimental parts of medical science. It allows receiving valuable information about any process in any tissue, and especially in bone. Each year the amount of data, received by IHC, grows in geometric progression. But the lack of standardization, especially on the post-analytical stage (interpreting and reporting of results), makes the comparison of the results of different studies impossible.', 'Comprehensive PubMED literature search with a combination of search words "immunohistochemistry" and "scoring system" was performed and 773 articles describing IHC results were identified. After further manual analysis 120 articles were selected for detailed evaluation of used approaches.', 'Six major approaches to the interpretation and presentation of IHC analysis results were identified, analyzed and described.
Answer: The overview of the existing approaches in evaluation and interpretation of IHC data, which are provided in the article, can be used in bone tissue research and for either better understanding of existing scoring systems or developing a new one. Standard multiparametric, semiquantitative IHC scoring systems should simplify and clarify the process of interpretation and reporting of received data.

Output: Does different approaches for interpretation and reporting of immunohistochemistry analysis result in the bone tissue - a review?

Input: Consider Input: Context: People with a history of rheumatic fever (RF) are at high risk of recurrent attacks and of developing rheumatic heart disease following a streptococcal throat infection. Giving penicillin to these people can prevent recurrent attacks of RF and subsequent rheumatic heart disease. However, there is no agreement on the most effective method of giving penicillin.', 'To assess the effects of different penicillin regimens and formulations for preventing streptococcal infection and RF recurrence.', 'We searched the Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2001), Medline (January 1966-July 2000), Embase (January 1985-July 2000), reference lists of articles, and contacted experts in the field.', 'Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing: (i) oral with intramuscular penicillin; and (ii) 2- or 3-weekly with 4-weekly intramuscular penicillin in patients with previous RF.', 'Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.', 'Six studies were included (1,707 patients). Data were not pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the trials. Four trials (1,098 patients) compared intramuscular with oral penicillin and all showed that intramuscular penicillin was more effective in reducing RF recurrence and streptococcal throat infections than oral penicillin. One trial (360 patients) compared 2-weekly with 4-weekly intramuscular penicillin. Penicillin given every 2 weeks was better at reducing RF recurrence (relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.83) and streptococcal throat infections (RR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.85). One trial (249 patients) showed that 3-weekly intramuscular penicillin injections reduced streptococcal throat infections (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.92) compared with 4-weekly intramuscular penicillin.
Answer: Intramuscular penicillin seemed to be more effective than oral penicillin in preventing RF recurrence and streptococcal throat infections. Two-weekly or 3-weekly injections appeared to be more effective than 4-weekly injections. However, the evidence is based on poor-quality trials and the use of outdated formulations of oral penicillin.

Output: Is intramuscular penicillin more effective than oral penicillin in secondary prevention of rheumatic fever -- a systematic review?

Input: Consider Input: Context: The Randomized Olmesartan and Diabetes Microalbuminuria Prevention (ROADMAP) study showed that 40 mg Olmesartan medoxomil (OM) versus placebo delayed microalbuminuria onset in patients with type 2 diabetes and normoalbuminuria.', 'One thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight ROADMAP patients (placebo arm: 877; OM arm: 881) participated in the observational follow up (OFU) with an average of 3.3 years. They received standard medical care and micro- and macrovascular events were documented. During observational follow-up 62.9% and 60.1% in the former OM and placebo group, respectively, received treatment with a RAS blocking agent. During the OFU period the systolic blood pressure (SBP) increased to mean values of 135 mm Hg in both groups. Patients who had developed microalbuminuria during ROADMAP had a higher incidence of cardio- and cerebrovascular events (OR 1.77, CI 1.03 to 3.03, P=0.039) during the OFU period compared with patients in whom this was not the case. Diabetic retinopathy was significantly reduced in the former OM group (8 [0.9%] versus 23 [2.6%], OR: 0.34, CI 0.15 to 0.78, P=0.011) and the rate of microalbuminuria was numerically reduced. Congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization (3 [0.3%] versus 12 [1.4%], OR: 0.23, CI 0.06 to 0.85, P=0.027) was reduced and there was a trend of reduced cardio-/cerebrovascular events (OM versus Pb: 73 [8.3%] versus 86 [9.8%] patients). Seven (0.8%) deaths (including 2 CV events) were reported in former placebo patients versus 3 (0.3%) (non-CV events) in former OM patients.
Answer: Development of microalbuminuria is a valid marker for future CV events. RAS blockade with Olmesartan might cause sustained reduction (legacy effect) of micro- and macrovascular events.
Output: Are the Randomized Olmesartan and Diabetes Microalbuminuria Prevention ( ROADMAP ) observational follow-up study : benefits of RAS blockade with olmesartan treatment sustained after study discontinuation?