S Sauerland1, R Lefering, E A Neugebauer. 1. Biochemical and Experimental Division, II. Department of Surgery, University of Cologne, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, D-51109 Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been proposed as a new paradigm of practising medicine. However, an unproductive polarisation between supporters and opponents can make its unbiased assessment difficult. This review gives an overview of the arguments and discusses their surgeon-specific importance. DISCUSSION: As EBM claims a position in the centre of medicine, it borders with other highly debated topics as, for instance, rationing and equity of care, doctor-patient interaction, medical research and education. Most arguments against EBM relate to its role in reducing health expenses by rationing healthcare. We think that the principles of EBM can be applied to make the inevitable process of rationing fair and reproducible. In addition, evidence-based surgery is criticised for interfering with patient individuality and physician autonomy, although this is a misunderstanding. Furthermore, the evidence-basis of EBM, in particular the randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review, has been subject of discussion. Additionally, surgical research has its own inherent difficulties and, ultimately, some clinicians have doubted the practical feasibility of applying EBM at the bedside, because searching and critically appraising the literature is too difficult and time consuming. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that most critics consider EBM to be a potentially dangerous tool, because they fear it will be used against themselves. Thus, these conflicts only prove that EBM as a methodology may have a strong impact on solving them. As EBM has already made discernible progress, surgeons should not stand aside from these activities, which are bound to strongly influence healthcare in the next century.
INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been proposed as a new paradigm of practising medicine. However, an unproductive polarisation between supporters and opponents can make its unbiased assessment difficult. This review gives an overview of the arguments and discusses their surgeon-specific importance. DISCUSSION: As EBM claims a position in the centre of medicine, it borders with other highly debated topics as, for instance, rationing and equity of care, doctor-patient interaction, medical research and education. Most arguments against EBM relate to its role in reducing health expenses by rationing healthcare. We think that the principles of EBM can be applied to make the inevitable process of rationing fair and reproducible. In addition, evidence-based surgery is criticised for interfering with patient individuality and physician autonomy, although this is a misunderstanding. Furthermore, the evidence-basis of EBM, in particular the randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review, has been subject of discussion. Additionally, surgical research has its own inherent difficulties and, ultimately, some clinicians have doubted the practical feasibility of applying EBM at the bedside, because searching and critically appraising the literature is too difficult and time consuming. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that most critics consider EBM to be a potentially dangerous tool, because they fear it will be used against themselves. Thus, these conflicts only prove that EBM as a methodology may have a strong impact on solving them. As EBM has already made discernible progress, surgeons should not stand aside from these activities, which are bound to strongly influence healthcare in the next century.