Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26546273›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015

Evidence-based medicine: is it a bridge too far?

Ana Fernandez, Joachim Sturmberg, Sue Lukersmith, Rosamond Madden, Ghazal Torkfar, Ruth Colagiuri, Luis Salvador-Carulla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Proof of concept studies in mental health systems research: strategy and steps.International journal of mental health systems · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors.

Ana FernandezBrain and Mind Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, 94 Mallett Street, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. ana.fernandez@sydney.edu.au.
Joachim SturmbergDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. jp.sturmberg@gmail.com.
Sue LukersmithCentre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. sue.lukersmith@sydney.edu.au.
Rosamond MaddenCentre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ros.madden@sydney.edu.au.
Ghazal TorkfarMenzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. gtor2513@uni.sydney.edu.au.
Ruth ColagiuriMenzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ruth.colagiuri@sydney.edu.au.
Luis Salvador-CarullaCentre for Disability Research and Policy-Brain and Mind Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. luis.salvador-carulla@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis paper aims to describe the contextual factors that gave rise to evidence-based medicine (EBM), as well as its controversies and limitations in the current health context. Our analysis utilizes two frameworks: (1) a complex adaptive view of health that sees both health and healthcare as non-linear phenomena emerging from their different components; and (2) the unified approach to the philosophy of science that provides a new background for understanding the differences between the phases of discovery, corroboration, and implementation in science.

resultsThe need for standardization, the development of clinical epidemiology, concerns about the economic sustainability of health systems and increasing numbers of clinical trials, together with the increase in the computer's ability to handle large amounts of data, have paved the way for the development of the EBM movement. It was quickly adopted on the basis of authoritative knowledge rather than evidence of its own capacity to improve the efficiency and equity of health systems. The main problem with the EBM approach is the restricted and simplistic approach to scientific knowledge, which prioritizes internal validity as the major quality of the studies to be included in clinical guidelines. As a corollary, the preferred method for generating evidence is the explanatory randomized controlled trial. This method can be useful in the phase of discovery but is inadequate in the field of implementation, which needs to incorporate additional information including expert knowledge, patients' values and the context.

conclusionEBM needs to move forward and perceive health and healthcare as a complex interaction, i.e. an interconnected, non-linear phenomenon that may be better analysed using a variety of complexity science techniques.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineKnowledgeTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID26546273
PMCPMC4636779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.