Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34057664›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2021

Epistemologies of evidence-based medicine: a plea for corpus-based conceptual research in the medical humanities.

Jan Buts, Mona Baker, Saturnino Luz, Eivind Engebretsen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jan ButsBoğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mona BakerUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Saturnino LuzUsher Institute, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Eivind EngebretsenFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Blindern, BOX 1078, 0316, Oslo, Norway. eivind.engebretsen@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9455-110X
University of Oslo · NOBoğaziçi University · TRUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Arts and Humanities Research Council AH/M010007/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine has been the subject of much controversy within and outside the field of medicine, with its detractors characterizing it as reductionist and authoritarian, and its proponents rejecting such characterization as a caricature of the actual practice. At the heart of this controversy is a complex linguistic and social process that cannot be illuminated by appealing to the semantics of the modifier evidence-based. The complexity lies in the nature of evidence as a basic concept that circulates in both expert and non-expert spheres of communication, supports different interpretations in different contexts, and is inherently open to contestation. We outline a new methodology that combines a social epistemological perspective with advanced methods of corpus linguistics and elements of conceptual history to investigate this and other basic concepts that underpin the practice and ethos of modern medicine. The potential of this methodology to offer new insights into controversies such as those surrounding EBM is demonstrated through a case study of the various meanings supported by evidence and based, as attested in a large electronic corpus of online material written by non-experts as well as a variety of experts in different fields, including medicine.

Indexed as

HumanitiesKnowledgeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansBasic conceptCorporaEvidenceEvidence-based medicineSocial epistemology

Identifiers

PMID34057664
PMCPMC8165676
OpenAlexW3165039429

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.