What Evidence in Evidence‐Based Medicine?

  title={What Evidence in Evidence‐Based Medicine?},
  author={John Worrall},
  journal={Philosophy of Science},
  pages={S316 - S330}
  • J. Worrall
  • Published 1 September 2002
  • Medicine
  • Philosophy of Science
Evidence‐Based Medicine is a relatively new movement that seeks to put clinical medicine on a firmer scientific footing. I take it as uncontroversial that medical practice should be based on best evidence—the interesting questions concern the details. This paper tries to move towards a coherent and unified account of best evidence in medicine, by exploring in particular the EBM position on RCTs (randomized controlled trials). 
Evidence in Medicine and Evidence‐Based Medicine
The point is not at all to question the application of a scientific approach to evidence in medicine, but to indicate a number of areas where philosophers of science can contribute to a proper implementation of exactly that scientific-evidential approach.
Partial Evidence in Medicine
We advance a conception of evidence in medicine that accounts for the significance of randomized clinical trials despite the fact that they are not the gold standard in clinical research. Crucial to
A Challenge for Evidence-Based Policy
Evidence-based policy has support in many areas of government and in public affairs more generally. In this paper we outline what evidence-based policy is, then we discuss its strengths and
Evidence‐Based Medicine Can’t Be…
Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) puts forward a hierarchy of evidence for informing therapeutic decisions. An unambiguous interpretation of how to apply EBM’s hierarchy has not been provided in the
Evidence-Free Medicine: Forgoing Evidence in Clinical Decision Making
  • M. Tonelli
  • Medicine
    Perspectives in biology and medicine
  • 2009
Examination of the nature of medical decision making without any appeal to evidence reveals a more complete understanding of the optimal practice of clinical medicine.
Innovating Medical Knowledge: Understanding Evidence-Based Medicine as a Socio-Medical Phenomenon
This chapter presents the evidence-based approach as a socio-medical phenomenon and seeks to explain and negotiate the points of disagreement between supporters and detractors.
Philosophical controversies in the evaluation of medical treatments : With a focus on the evidential roles of randomization and mechanisms in Evidence-Based Medicine
This thesis examines philosophical controversies surrounding the evaluation of medical treatments, with a focus on the evidential roles of randomised trials and mechanisms in Evidence-Based Medicin
Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) makes use of explicit procedures for grading evidence for causal claims. Normally, these procedures categorise evidence of correlation produced by statistical trials as


Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
As evidence based medicine continues to evolve and adapt, now is a useful time to refine the discussion of what it is andWhat it is not.
The value of randomization and control in clinical trials.
It is argued that a Bayesian analysis of clinical trials affords a valid, intuitively plausible rationale for selective controls, and marks out a more limited role for randomization than it is generally accorded.
Randomized clinical trials. Perspectives on some recent ideas.
Ethical considerations suggest that randomized trials are more suitable than uncontrolled experimentation in protecting the interests of patients and Randomized clinical trials remain the most reliable method for evaluating the efficacy of therapies.
Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach
The Rationale of Clinical Trials and its Applications: The Justificaton for Randomized Controlled Trials.
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
The view is widely held that experimental methods (randomised controlled trials) are the "gold standard" for evaluation and that observational methods have little or no value, but this ignores the limitations of randomised trials.
Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.
The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that were studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.
Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity.
Problems of statistical and conceptual design of experiments are exacerberated by ethical issues in many, if not most, clinical trials. Statutory requirements of demonstrated effectiveness are far
Randomised controlled trials and retrospective controls.
Randomised controlled trials have been common practice for so long now that many authors have begun to recommend once more trials of therapy in which current results with one method are compared with the results obtained previously by another.
Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.
The results of well-designed observational studies (with either a cohort or a case-control design) do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment as compared with those in randomized, controlled trials on the same topic.
Randomization and the Design of Experiments
  • P. Urbach
  • Mathematics
    Philosophy of Science
  • 1985
In clinical and agricultural trials, there is the danger that an experimental outcome appears to arise from the causal process or treatment one is interested in when, in reality, it was produced by