ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2020
Experiential knowledge in clinical medicine: use and justification.
Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing clinical research on hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a narrative review and practical methodological guide.Trials · 2026Review
- When evidence meets artificial intelligence.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Could ChatGPT and co. replace forensic experts? A comparative study on medical liability expertise.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Epistemic agency in self-tracking: a conceptual literature review of quantified self as citizen science for health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- 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
- [How to select a qualitative meta-synthesis for evidence-based practice in health].Revista de salud publica (Bogota, Colombia) · 2025Review
- Consensus-based recommendations for the rehabilitation of children with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita: an integrated knowledge translation approach.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Off-label drug use in China after the Physician Law (2021): legal challenges and solutions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Storylines of family medicine VIII: clinical approaches.Family medicine and community health · 2024Article
- Against 'instantaneous' expertise.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2022Article
- A call to address structural barriers to Hispanic/Latino representation in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: A micro-meso-macro perspective.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the evidence-based medicine (EBM) construct, clinical expertise is acknowledged to be both derived from primary experience and necessary for optimal medical practice. Primary experience in medical practice, however, remains undervalued. Clinicians' primary experience tends to be dismissed by EBM as unsystematic or anecdotal, a source of bias rather than knowledge, never serving as the "best" evidence to support a clinical decision. The position that clinical expertise is necessary but that primary experience is untrustworthy in clinical decision-making is epistemically incoherent. Here we argue for the value and utility of knowledge gained from primary experience for the practice of medicine. Primary experience provides knowledge necessary to diagnose, treat, and assess response in individual patients. Hierarchies of evidence, when advanced as guides for clinical decisions, mistake the relationship between propositional and experiential knowledge. We argue that primary experience represents a kind of medical knowledge distinct from the propositional knowledge produced by clinical research, both of which are crucial to determining the best diagnosis and course of action for particular patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32333140What 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.