Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28508440›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2017

Has evidence-based medicine ever been modern? A Latour-inspired understanding of a changing EBM.

Sietse Wieringa, Eivind Engebretsen, Kristin Heggen, Trish Greenhalgh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Fossil Health: Deconstructing the Health and Energy Relationship to Reimagine a Viable Future.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Translating COVID-19: From Contagion to Containment.The Journal of medical humanities · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Rethinking bias and truth in evidence-based health care.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Sietse WieringaMedical Faculty, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7758-8493
Eivind EngebretsenMedical Faculty, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin HeggenMedical Faculty, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Trish GreenhalghMedical Faculty, Primary Care Health Sciences Oxford, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based health care (EBHC), previously evidence-based medicine (EBM), is considered by many to have modernized health care and brought it from an authority-based past to a more rationalist, scientific grounding. But recent concerns and criticisms pose serious challenges and urge us to look at the fundamentals of a changing EBHC. In this paper, we present French philosopher Bruno Latour's vision on modernity as a framework to discuss current changes in the discourse on EBHC/EBM. Drawing on Latour's work, we argue that the early EBM movement had a strong modernist agenda with an aim to "purify" clinical reality into a dichotomy of objective "evidence" from nature and subjective "preferences" from human society and culture. However, we argue that this shift has proved impossible to achieve in reality. Several recent developments appear to point to a demise of purified evidence in the EBHC discourse and a growing recognition-albeit implicit and undertheorized-that evidence in clinical decision making is relentlessly situated and contextual. The unique, individual patient, not abstracted truths from distant research studies, must be the starting point for clinical practice. It follows that the EBHC community needs to reconsider the assumption that science should be abstracted from culture and acknowledge that knowledge from human culture and nature both need translation and interpretation. The implications for clinical reasoning are far reaching. We offer some preliminary principles for conceptualizing EBHC as a "situated practice" rather than as a sequence of research-driven abstract decisions.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansepistemologyevidence-based medicinehealth caremedical researchphilosophy of medicine

Identifiers

PMID28508440
PMCPMC5655926

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.