The evidence thing.
The methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become dominant in the clinical field to the detriment of historically validated paradigms. The philosophical background of EBM is considered and the strengths and flaws of its main tools (randomized trials and meta-analysis) are reviewed. The structural format of EBM speaks the language of regulators and health planners, satisfies the needs of the academic-industrial complex, and is favored by editors of medical journals. Specific problems of trials of medical versus surgical therapy are noted. The deductive-numerical approach of EBM is a methodology geared to ascertain the most effective management of a condition when the differences observed between the two entities being considered is small. EBM methodology is unlikely to lead to discovery of new diseases or treatments; the latter derive from alert observation and inductive inference. While its contribution to the rigorous analysis of effectiveness of some therapies is acknowledged, EBM is not the nostrum of clinical research. Observational and inductive clinical intelligence should be stimulated and published because a therapy needs to be invented before it is proven effective. Biomathematicians need to improve nonrandomized methodology as they did for randomized studies.
Berguer
Ramon
R
Division of Vascular Surgery, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48322, USA. rberguer@med.wayne.edu
D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D019370:Observation; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015203:Reproducibility of Results