scholarly journals Miasmas, mental models and preventive public health: some philosophical reflections on science in the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trisha Greenhalgh

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, it is likely to show that the mental models held by scientists sometimes facilitated their thinking, thereby leading to lives saved, and at other times constrained their thinking, thereby leading to lives lost. This paper explores some competing mental models of how infectious diseases spread and shows how these models influenced the scientific process and the kinds of facts that were generated, legitimized and used to support policy. A central theme in the paper is the relative weight given by dominant scientific voices to probabilistic arguments based on experimental measurements versus mechanistic arguments based on theory. Two examples are explored: the cholera epidemic in nineteenth century London—in which the story of John Snow and the Broad Street pump is retold—and the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and early 2021—in which the evidence-based medicine movement and its hierarchy of evidence features prominently. In each case, it is shown that prevailing mental models—which were assumed by some to transcend theory but were actually heavily theory-laden—powerfully shaped both science and policy, with fatal consequences for some.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily R. Winslow

Descriptions of “evidence-based” approaches to medical care are now ubiquitous in both the popular press and medical journals. The term evidence-based medicine (EBM) was first coined in 1992, and over the last two decades, the field has experienced rapid growth, and its principles now permeate both graduate medical education and clinical practice. The field of EBM has been in constant evolution since its introduction and continues to undergo refinements as its principles are tested and applied in a wide variety of clinical circumstances. This review presents a brief history of EBM, EBM: fundamental tenets, a critical appraisal of a single study, reporting guidelines for single studies, a critical appraisal of a body of evidence, evidence-based surgery, and limitations in EBM. Tables list strength of evidence for treatment decisions (EBM working group), Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine revised levels of evidence for treatment benefits , “4S” approach to finding resources for EBM, critical appraisal of individual studies examining therapeutic decisions, reporting guidelines by study design, and key resources for evidence-based surgery. This review contains 6 tables and 85 references


Author(s):  
Michael P. Catanzaro

This chapter provides a summary of a landmark historical study in cardiac surgery related to internal mammary artery ligation versus sham sternotomy for angina pectoris. It describes the history of the procedure and a summary of the study including study design and results, and relates the study to a modern-day principle of evidence-based medicine: blinding and sham surgery. Whether or not sham surgery is ethical remains under debate. Proponents for sham surgery agree that it should be used only when a question cannot be answered adequately by other methods. Cobb and his colleagues were among the first to demonstrate the value of sham studies in addressing important clinical questions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 86-88
Author(s):  
Bishan Basu

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) came into fashion nearly three decades ago. However, over this short period, this system of medical philosophy has come to dominate the medical practice worldwide. Never in the history of medicine could a single way of medical practice could dominate the healthcare systems of diverse countries like EBM did, that too within such short time span. But, it is high time we should ponder over the pros and cons of EBM and if this way of medical practice is to be allowed to continue, we should consider integration of additional inputs from the traditional ways of medicine. Though article focusses upon the cancer care, the conclusions derived can be applied to any other disciplines of healthcare.


2016 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine G. Akers, PhD

Because they do not rank highly in the hierarchy of evidence and are not frequently cited, case reports describing the clinical circumstances of single patients are seldom published by medical journals. However, many clinicians argue that case reports have significant educational value, advance medical knowledge, and complement evidence-based medicine. Over the last several years, a vast number (~160) of new peer-reviewed journals have emerged that focus on publishing case reports. These journals are typically open access and have relatively high acceptance rates. However, approximately half of the publishers of case reports journals engage in questionable or ‘‘predatory’’ publishing practices. Authors of case reports may benefit from greater awareness of these new publication venues as well as an ability to discriminate between reputable and non-reputable journal publishers.


The pursuit of tests for therapeutic interventions has been a characteristic of Western medicine since ancient times. Historical accounts of the clinical trial are usually expressed through the lens of presentism: how the various components of the first modern randomized controlled trial-the comparison, blinding, and randomization-culminated in Austin Bradford Hill’s 1946 trial of streptomycin for tuberculosis. The factual context of the development of the randomized controlled trial is important if only to emphasize the historicity of contemporary research methodology. However, the adoption of the various components of the trial at any one time has as much to do with changing the socio-political and ethical contexts as the ‘objective’ scientific standards of evidence. Evidence is not just scientific data floating in some ethereal medium, but is also linked to facts and beliefs of the various members of diverse medical communities who interpret evidence and deploy it to legitimize various strategies. This introductory chapter aims to present the background and context through which evidence-based medicine has emerged.


Author(s):  
Michael P. Catanzaro ◽  
Rachel J. Kwon

This chapter provides a summary of a landmark historical study in surgery related to timing of cholecystectomy after biliary pancreatitis. It describes the history of the disease, a summary of the study including study design and results, and relates the study to a modern-day principle of evidence-based medicine: systematic reviews. This study was the first prospective randomized study to show that early removal of impacted gallstones did not prevent the progression of pancreatitis but did put patients at increased risk for other complications. Current guidelines, informed by this and subsequent studies, recommend that surgery be performed after pancreatic inflammation has subsided but ideally during the same hospital admission.


2013 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 2157-2172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiantong Shen ◽  
Leye Yao ◽  
Youping Li ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
...  

GYNECOLOGY ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 41-44
Author(s):  
Elena I. Ermakova ◽  
Svetlana V. Yureneva

Aim. To formulate a position statement on the management of the menopause in women with a past history of endometriosis from the point of view of evidence-based medicine. Materials and methods. Review of domestic and foreign literature, position of IMS and EMAS. Results. The article describes the main modes snd ways of introducing MHT and their advantages. The expert position on the management of patients with a history of endometriosis during surgical and natural menopause is highlighted. Information on the prevalence and methods of treatment of postmenopausal endometriosis is given.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document