Literature DB >> 30887648

Evidence-based medicine-Not a panacea for the problems of a complex adaptive world.

Joachim P Sturmberg1.   

Abstract

The recent sacking of Peter Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration Board raised strong responses and highlights the neglected issue about priorities-maintaining the reputation of the organization or vigorously debating the merits of scientific approaches to find answers to complex problems? The Cochrane approach hales the randomized trial (RCT) as the gold standard research approach and affirms that meta-analysis provides the ultimate proof (or platinum standard) to settle contentious issues confronting the clinician. However, most published medical research is wrong, and critics coined the acronym GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as a meme to highlight the risks of blind faith in the hyped-up procedures of the EBM movement. This paper firstly explores the differences between the prevailing scientific method arising from the linear cause-and-effect assumption and the complex adaptive systems science methods arising from observations that most phenomena emerge from nonlinearity in networked systems. Most medical conditions are characterized by necessary features that by themselves are not sufficient to explain their nature and behaviour. Such nonlinear phenomena require modelling approaches rather than linear statistical and/or meta-analysis approaches to be understood. These considerations also highlight that research is largely stuck at the data and information levels of understanding which fails clinicians who depend on knowledge-the synthesis of information-to apply in an adaptive way in the clinical encounter. Clinicians are constantly confronted with the linked challenges of doing things right and doing the right thing for their patients. EBM and Cochrane with their restrictive approaches are the antithesis to a practice of medicine that is responsive to constantly changing patient needs. As such, the EBM/Cochrane crisis opens a window of opportunity to re-examine the nature of health, illness and disease, and the nature of health care and its systems for the benefits of its professionals and their patients. We are at the cusp of a paradigmatic shift towards an understanding a praxis of health care that takes account of its complexities.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30887648     DOI: 10.1111/jep.13122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  4 in total

1.  "Retrofitting" established genetic disorders and diseases through big data and phenomics.

Authors:  William D Graf; Robert J Shprintzen
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2020-10

2.  Assessment of foot alignment and function for ambulatory children with cerebral palsy: Results of a modified Delphi technique consensus study.

Authors:  Jon R Davids; Jeff Shilt; Robert Kay; Thomas Dreher; Benjamin J Shore; James McCarthy; Wade Shrader; Kerr Graham; Matthew Veerkamp; Unni Narayanan; Hank Chambers; Tom Novacheck; Jason Rhodes; Anja Van Campenhout; Kristan Pierz; Tim Theologis; Erich Rutz
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 1.917

Review 3.  The search for scientific meaning in mindfulness research: Insights from a scoping review.

Authors:  Nhat Tram Phan-Le; Linda Brennan; Lukas Parker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  The power of small data for personalized cancer care.

Authors:  Junqiang Zhao
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2022-05-20
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.