Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12769417›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2002

Evidence-based medicine: excessive attraction to efficiency and certainty?

Erik Nord

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Evidence-based medicine: why do opponents and proponents use the same arguments?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2005
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Erik NordNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advocates of EBM deserve much credit for their efforts to increase the use of scientific evidence and economic evaluation in medical decision making. But EBM advocates' rigid requirements of certainty in the estimation of intervention effects may run counter to society's interest in maximising the expected benefits from resource use in health care. Also, their dedication to efficiency may lead some to overlook societal concerns for fairness in resource allocation.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Care RationingHumansPolicy MakingQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality of Health CareHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.