Although patients who are involved in decision-making about their health have better outcomes,  healthcare professionals rarely involve them in these decisions.  A recently updated Cochrane review  has synthesized the body of evidence about different interventions that can be used to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions about their health. In this review of studies testing interventions to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions, five studies were identiﬁed. This review found that educational meetings, giving healthcare professionals feedback, giving healthcare professionals learning materials, and using patient decision aids are some techniques that have been tried and might be helpful. However, the review could not determine from the available studies which of these were best. The review makes some suggestions for how research studies could better evaluate healthcare professionals involving patients in the process of making decisions about their health so that we can understand this better in the future.  There is also a need for greater conceptual clarity. Involving patients in decisions is by definition a process that could occur over time and in many encounters. Much of the literature seems to assume that achieving shared decision-making is a matter of giving healthcare professionals enough information.
The Qanun was translated into Latin as Canon medicinae by Gerard of Cremona . (Confusingly there appear to have been two men called Gerard of Cremona, both translators of Arabic texts into Latin. Ostler states that it was the later of these, also known as Gerard de Sabloneta, who translated the Qanun (and other medical works) into Latin in the 13th century.)  The encyclopaedic content, systematic arrangement, and combination of Galen's medicine with Aristotle's science and philosophy helped the Canon enter European scholastic medicine. Medical scholars started to use the Canon in the 13th century, while university courses implemented the text from the 14th century onwards.  The Canon ' s influence declined in the 16th century as a result of humanists' preference in medicine for ancient Greek and Roman authorities over Arabic authorities, although others defended Avicenna's innovations beyond the original classical texts. It fell out of favour in university syllabi, although it was still being taught as background literature as late as 1715 in Padua.  
Blinding : the process of preventing one or more of patients, clinicians, investigators, and data analysts from knowing whether individual patients are receiving the investigational intervention(s) or the control (or standard) intervention(s) in a clinical trial. (Also known as masking.) Blinding is intended to eliminate the possibility that knowledge of which intervention is being received will affect patient outcomes, investigator behaviors that may affect outcomes, or assessment of outcomes. Blinding is not always practical (. when comparing surgery to drug treatment), but it should be used whenever it is possible and compatible with optimal patient care. The terms “single-blinded,” “double-blinded,” and “triple-blinded” refer to which parties are blinded, ., one or more of patients, investigators, and data analysts; however, these terms are used inconsistently and the specific parties who are blinded in a trial should be identified.