Evidence-based medicine and clinical epidemiology

2022 ◽  
pp. 106-115.e2
Author(s):  
Catherine H. Watson ◽  
Fidel A. Valea ◽  
Laura J. Havrilesky
2021 ◽  
Vol LIII (1) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Nikita A. Zorin

One explanation for breakdown of the traditional medical connection of diagnosis and treatment is presented. It is suggested that it was a natural process brought to life by the results of the development of genetics and the results of the application of clinical epidemiology (the theory of evidence-based medicine), which led to the beginning of the downfall of the nosological concept, so far de facto, and in the long term de jure. Medicine is painfully returning to a holistic view of a patient.


2013 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. S5-S7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tin Tin Su ◽  
Awang M. Bulgiba ◽  
Pichet Sampatanukul ◽  
Sudigdo Sastroasmoro ◽  
Peter Chang ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 47-48
Author(s):  
E. V. Surkova ◽  
M. B. Antsiferov

A book by Harvard University professors Robert Fletcher and Susan Fletcher and Edward Wagner, a professor at the University of Washington, published by Media Sphere, focuses on the fundamentals of a new, rapidly growing field of knowledge in medical science - clinical epidemiology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 308
Author(s):  
Timo Bolt ◽  
F G Huisman

This paper seeks to inform the current debate on an alleged ‘crisis’ and the ‘unintended negative consequences’ of evidence-based medicine (EBM) from a historical perspective. EBM can be placed against the background of a long term process of medical quantification and objectification. This long term process was accompanied by a ‘specificity revolution’, which made the ontological concept of diseases as specific entities the central ordering and regulatory principle in healthcare (as well as in clinical epidemiology and EBM). To a certain extent, the debate about EBM’s alleged crisis can be understood as resulting from this specificity revolution. When the ontological concept of disease is applied too rigidly, this will contribute to ‘negative unintended consequences’ of EBM such as ‘poor mapping of multimorbidity’ and medical practice ‘that is management-driven rather than patient-centered’.


2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard I. Kushner

Over the past decade, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become the standard for medical practice.1 Evidence-based practices have been established in general medicine and specialized fields; new evidence-based journals have been launched.2 Although its roots can be found in mid-nineteenth-century medical philosophy, contemporary EBM was largely developed by the clinical epidemiology program at McMaster University in 1992.3 According to the McMaster manifesto published in JAMA, EBM “deemphasizes intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale as sufficient grounds for clinical decision-making, and stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research.”4 The most frequently cited definition of EBM is reliance on the “conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients,” based on an integration of “individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.”5 However, as Stefan Timmermans and Aaron Mauck recently observed, EBM “is loosely used and can refer to anything from conducting a statistical meta-analysis of accumulated research to promoting randomized clinical trials, to supporting uniform reporting styles for research, to a personal orientation toward critical self-evaluation.”6


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document