Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40725787›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Evidence-Based Medicine: Past, Present, Future.

Filippos Triposkiadis, Dirk L Brutsaert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Filippos TriposkiadisDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, 41500 Larissa, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-6433-4016
Dirk L BrutsaertDepartment of Medicine & Cardiology, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

big dataevidence-based medicinehealthcare

Identifiers

PMID40725787
PMCPMC12295464

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.