Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24278804›Full record

ReviewGlobal advances in health and medicine2012

The problem with science-the context and process of care: an excerpt from remodelling medicine.

Jeremy Swayne

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global advances in health and medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Inductive or deductive? Research by maxillofacial surgeons.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2021
    Article
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.

Jeremy Swayne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of science is truth through knowledge. But medicine's truth is not altogether the same as science's truth.Science works with ideas, imagination and intuition, but essentially has to do with facts. Medicine has also to deal with meaning.This is not an argument for less science in medicine, but for more and better science; better in the sense of better attuned to 'the rest of life'.Truthfulness is a core principle of medical practice and medical science.But a kind of untruthfulness is common in day-to-day clinical practice.The fundamental untruth is the illusion of certainty.The inexcusable untruth is to reduce the patient's problem to it to its narrow biomedical parameters and to allow the patient as a person to vanish from our gaze.Science fails medicine by the narrowness of the scope of things it is willing to investigate. Important areas of medicine have been neglected as a consequence.The medical research culture must change if it is to promote science for understanding alongside science for manipulation. We need to be unsparingly critical of the distinction between useful science and wasteful science."Medical knowledge is not knowledge acquired primarily for its own sake (but) for a specific purpose-the care of the sick."(1.)

Indexed as

healingillnessintegrative medicinepolicyresearchscienceScientificismtreatmenttruthwhole person

Identifiers

PMID24278804
PMCPMC3833474

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.