title: Has evidence-based medicine left quackery behind?
abstract: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is generally considered as the most complete paradigm in the practice of clinical medicine. Its application should preclude all kinds of quackery. Therapeutic reformers of the second half of the twentieth century have convinced the medical community that the double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus placebo is the gold standard in clinical research to establish evidence of treatment usefulness. Nevertheless, this paradigm ignores the importance of non-specific effects in the healing process and can generate misrepresentations. Additionally, because of methodological limitations, RCTs as they are used in practice can give rise to new forms of quackery by promoting drugs that are not useful for the patients who actually receive them, or are so expensive that their value is open to criticism. This is precisely the case when surrogate outcomes, with questionable clinical significance, are used. These can divert attention from clinically relevant outcomes, such as safety issues that are probably the core of treatment evaluation. The boundaries between quackery and EBM that clinicians are faced with are not so clear-cut. There is a need for doctors to acknowledge their share in quackery and to be continually conscious of the possible pitfalls of their therapeutic practice.
authors.affiliation: Centre d'Investigation Clinique, CIC-P INSERM 1414, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes et Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, floriannaudet@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Florian
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Naudet
authors.forename: Bruno
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Falissard
authors.forename: Rémy
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Boussageon
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Healy
mesh_terms: D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D011781:Quackery / Q000639:trends*
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD007954
references.pmid: 19588448
references.citation: BMJ. 2013 May 08;346:f2961
references.pmid: 23657192
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Sep 20;343 :d5960
references.pmid: 21937550
references.citation: World Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;11(2):70-2
references.pmid: 22654931
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Jul 12;343:d4370
references.pmid: 21750062
references.citation: BMJ. 2014 Jun 13;348:g3725
references.pmid: 24927763
references.citation: Diabetes Metab. 2014 Jun;40(3):169-75
references.pmid: 24503191
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 8;360(2):129-39
references.pmid: 19092145
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2545-59
references.pmid: 18539917
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2010 Oct 26;7(10):e1000354
references.pmid: 21048986
references.citation: Lancet. 2010 Feb 20;375(9715):686-95
references.pmid: 20171404
references.citation: Lancet. 2009 Oct 10;374(9697):1234-5
references.pmid: 19839101
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 14;365(2):119-26
references.pmid: 21751905
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2009 Oct 26;169(19):1737-9
references.pmid: 19858427
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2009 Oct 26;169(19):1756-61
references.pmid: 19858432
references.citation: JAMA. 2014 May 14;311(18):1889-900
references.pmid: 24825644
references.citation: Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Jan;61(582):47-9
references.pmid: 21401992
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 19;367(3):193-7
references.pmid: 22808954
references.citation: BMJ. 2011 Jul 26;343:d4169
references.pmid: 21791495
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2006 Oct 9;166(18):1938-42
references.pmid: 17030825