ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health1997
Cochrane Lecture 1997. What evidence do we need for evidence based medicine?
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emphasizing the health benefits of vitamin D for those with neurodevelopmental disorders and intellectual disabilities.Nutrients · 2015Review
- Evidence-based medicine as an instrument for rational health policy.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2002Article
- Expectations of health care: promoted, managed or shared?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 1998Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As presently understood, evidence based medicine aims to advance practice from its traditional unverifiable mix of art and science to rational use of measurable inputs and outputs. In practice, however, its advocates accept uncritically a desocialised definition of science, assume that major clinical decisions are taken at the level of secondary specialist rather than primary generalist care, and ignore the multiple nature of most clinical problems, as well as the complexity of social problems within which clinical problems arise and have to be solved. These reductionist assumptions derive from the use of evidence based medicine as a tool for managed care in a transactional model for consultations. If these assumptions persist, they will strengthen reification of disease and promote the episodic output of process regardless of health outcome. We need to work within a different paradigm based on development of patients as co-producers rather than consumers, promoting continuing output of health gain through shared decisions using all relevant evidence, within a broader, socialised definition of science. Adoption of this model would require a major social and cultural shift for health professionals. This shift has already begun, promoted by changes in public attitudes to professional authority, changes in the relation of professionals to managers, and pressures for improved effectiveness and efficiency which, contrary to received wisdom, seem more likely to endorse cooperative than transactional clinical production. Progress on these lines is resisted by rapidly growing and extremely powerful economic and political interests. Health professionals and strategists have yet to recognise and admit the existence of this choice.
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.