ReviewMedizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983)2010
[Is "evidence-based medicine" followed by "confidence-based medicine"?].
Review in Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an appeal concerning accusations of defamation, the England and Wales Court of Appeal Decisions determined that evidence-based statements are to be judged as opinions and not statements of fact. Since the authors consider it probable that this legal judgment will exert influence on physicians' decisions about the provision of health care services, they have compiled the implications of the judgment and discuss its consequences. The own analyses and considerations lead to the conclusion that confidence-based medicine follows evidence-based medicine. This extension is necessary because evidence-based medicine has not been able to generate the required trust. Therefore, it will be demanded to underpin the existing concept with additional data. These data will be necessary because it is no longer sufficient to convince scientists with data which are obtained under ideal conditions, but to convince critical members of society with additional data which have been obtained under everyday conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20824414What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.