ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Evidence-Based Medicine: Past, Present, Future.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Urinary Sodium into the Larissa Heart Failure Risk Score Improves Early Risk Stratification in Acute Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Global research trends and hotspots in robotic-assisted prostate biopsy: a bibliometric analysis from 2008 to 2026.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Personalized Medicine, Storied Past, Contentious Present, Promising Future.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Total Laboratory Automation for Microbiology Activities: An HTA Analysis in an Italian Laboratory Setting.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
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
Early medical traditions include those of ancient Babylonia, China, Egypt, and India. The roots of modern Western medicine, however, go back to ancient Greece. During the Renaissance, physicians increasingly relied on observation and experimentation to understand the human body and develop new techniques for diagnosis and treatment. The discovery of antibiotics, antiseptics, and other drugs in the 19th century accelerated the development of modern medicine, the latter being fueled further by advances in technology, research, a better understanding of the human body, and, most recently, the introduction of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The EBM model de-emphasized intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale as sufficient grounds for clinical decision-making and stressed the examination of evidence from clinical research. A later EBM model additionally incorporated clinical expertise and the latest model of EBM patients' preferences and actions. In this review article, we argue that in the era of precision medicine, major EBM principles must be based on (a) the systematic identification, analysis, and utility of big data using artificial intelligence; (b) the magnifying effect of medical interventions by means of the physician-patient interaction, the latter being guided by the physician's expertise, intuition, and philosophical beliefs; and (c) the patient preferences, since, in healthcare under precision medicine, the patient will be a central stakeholder contributing data and actively participating in shared decision-making.
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.