ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2018
Expertise in evidence-based medicine: a tale of three models.
Article in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- When evidence fails in real life: Rethinking sports injury rehabilitation and prevention.Brazilian journal of physical therapy · 2026Review
- Identification of spastic muscles involved in abnormal joint posture in patients with upper motor neuron syndrome: a narrative review.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2026Review
- Conceptualizing the evidence pyramid for use in clinical practice: a narrative literature review.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- Conceptualizing clinical expertise in evidence-based practice: a narrative literature review with implications for clinical decision-making.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- The Ontario Chiropractic Association's Evidence-Based Framework Advisory Council: Enhancing patient care through the comprehensive integration of the pillars of evidence-based practice.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- Rare Etiologies of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Adoption of evidence-based medicine: A comparative study of hospital and community pharmacists in Saudi Arabia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Risk factors for migraine disease progression: a narrative review for a patient-centered approach.Journal of neurology · 2023Review
- Incorporating Acupuncture Into American Healthcare: Initiating a Discussion on Implementation Science, the Status of the Field, and Stakeholder Considerations.Global advances in health and medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Validation of the Brief Thai Version of the Work-Related Quality of Life Scale (Brief THWRQLS).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- First-Line Interactive Wound Dressing Update: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpertise has been a contentious concept in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). Especially in the early days of the movement, expertise was taken to be exactly what EBM was rebelling against-the authoritarian pronouncements about "best" interventions dutifully learned in medical schools, sometimes with dire consequences. Since then, some proponents of EBM have tried various ways of reincorporating the idea of expertise into EBM, with mixed results. However, questions remain. Is expertise evidence? If not, what is it good for, if anything?
methodsIn this article, I describe and analyze the three historical models of expertise integration in EBM and discuss the difficulties in putting each into practice. I also examine accounts of expertise from disciplines outside of medicine, including philosophy, sociology, psychology, and science and technology studies to see if these accounts can strengthen and clarify what EBM has to say about expertise.
resultsOf the accounts of expertise discussed here, the Collins and Evans account can do most to clarify the concept of expertise in EBM.
conclusionsWith some additional clarification from EBM proper, theoretical resources from other disciplines might augment the current EBM account of expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.