Literature DB >> 16215804

The challenges of evidence-based medicine: a philosophical perspective.

Abhaya V Kulkarni1.   

Abstract

Although evidence-based medicine (EBM) has gained prominence in current medical practice and research, it has also had to deal with a number of problems and inconsistencies. For example, how do clinicians reconcile discordant results of randomized trials or how do they apply results of randomized trials to individual patients? In an attempt to examine such problems in a structured way, this essay describes EBM within a philosophical framework of science. Using this approach, some of the problems and challenges faced by EBM can be explained at a more fundamental level. As well, by employing a similar description of the competing alternative research tradition of clinical medicine, this essay not only highlights the philosophical differences between these two modes of medical practice, but suggests that they, in fact, play a de facto complementary role in current clinical medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16215804     DOI: 10.1007/s11019-004-7345-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Health Care Philos        ISSN: 1386-7423


  22 in total

1.  Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-11-04       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Problems induced by meta-analyses.

Authors:  T C Chalmers
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  The n-of-1 randomized controlled trial: clinical usefulness. Our three-year experience.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; J L Keller; R Jaeschke; D Rosenbloom; J D Adachi; M T Newhouse
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-02-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Evidence-based medicine, in its place.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-09-23       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  The rise and fall of EBM.

Authors:  B G Charlton; A Miles
Journal:  QJM       Date:  1998-05

Review 6.  Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?

Authors:  J C Cappelleri; J P Ioannidis; C H Schmid; S D de Ferranti; M Aubert; T C Chalmers; J Lau
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996 Oct 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  D J Cook; D L Sackett; W O Spitzer
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  J Villar; G Carroli; J M Belizán
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-03-25       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  C D Naylor
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-04-01       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  5 in total

1.  Ethical issues in surgical research.

Authors:  Patrick J McDonald; Abhaya V Kulkarni; Forough Farrokhyar; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 2.  Life issues in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Rex D Simmons
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 42.937

3.  A dynamic human health risk assessment system.

Authors:  Umesh Prasad; Gurmit Singh; A B Pant
Journal:  Toxicol Int       Date:  2012-05

4.  The recent history of the clinical case report: a narrative review.

Authors:  Trygve Nissen; Rolf Wynn
Journal:  JRSM Short Rep       Date:  2012-12-31

5.  From inverse problems in mathematical physiology to quantitative differential diagnoses.

Authors:  Sven Zenker; Jonathan Rubin; Gilles Clermont
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2007-09-06       Impact factor: 4.475

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.