Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27406215›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2016

Why several truths can be true.

Eivind Meland, John Brodersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2016. 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. Article
  2. Dilemmas of medical overuse in general practice - A focus group study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Eivind Melanda Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care , University of Bergen , Bergen , Norway ;
John Brodersenb Centre of Research & Education in General Practice , Primary Health Care Research Unit , Zealand Region , Denmark ;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we offer a perspective on complementarity, acknowledging that it is not possible for human perception and cognition to grasp reality with unambiguous concepts or theories. Therefore, multiple concepts and perspectives are valid when they are not exaggerated beyond reasonable limits and do not claim exclusive validity. We recommend a humble stance enabling respectful dialogue between different perspectives in medical science and practice. KEY POINTS No single perspective in clinical or scientific medicine can exhaustively explain medical phenomena. Scientific attitude is characterised by a willingness to look for objections against what we prefer as truths. Complementarity or unifying contradictions are concepts that allow for humility and pluralism in clinical and scientific medicine.

Indexed as

KnowledgeResearchUncertaintyCognitionDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMedical ethicsphilosophy of scienceresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID27406215
PMCPMC5036018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.