ArticleNursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals2026
The Generativity of Variability for Evidence-Based Practice.
Article in Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The evidence-based practice (EBP) paradigm has become a dominant approach to clinical care, organizing healthcare around the production, synthesis, and implementation of evidence. Yet despite sustained efforts to standardize practice in terms of evidence, variability in care delivery, outcomes, and decision-making persists. Nursing scholarship has critically examined EBP as a dominant epistemological orientation to practice, often identifying variability as that which troubles the evidentiary aspiration to standardize, generalize, and govern practice. Building on this work, I take variability as a starting point for examining how healthcare is configured as an evidentiary domain in the first place. Drawing on Michel Callon's concepts of framing and overflowing, EBP is approached as an ongoing effort to make clinical practice sufficiently calculable, comparable, and actionable. The analysis shows how variability appears not simply as what exceeds or opposes evidence, but as that which is directly operative in the processes through which evidentiary arrangements are developed, enacted, and transformed. In this way, evidence and practice emerge not as pre-existing domains requiring reconciliation, but as ongoing accomplishments produced through processes of framing and overflowing. What then becomes visible is the continual formation of healthcare, where evidentiary arrangements, clinical practices, problems, and possibilities are continually encountered, enacted, and made consequential, inviting inquiry into the ways nursing participates in these processes.
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.