Abstract
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) emerged during the 1990s, with the aim of improving clinical practice by increasing the extent to which clinical care was informed by medical research, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs. This chapter gives an account of EBM, followed by examination of epistemological and ethical justifications and critiques of EBM. EBM relies upon epistemological claims about the ability of RCTs to eliminate certain forms of bias and to establish whether or not there is a causal relationship between an intervention and an outcome. However, epistemological critiques of EBM include reservations about whether EBM can “prove” causation, concerns about the rejection of mechanistic models of causation, challenges associated with applying the results of RCTs to individual patients, and lack of evidence regarding whether EBM has in fact benefitted patients and healthcare systems. The ethical justifications for EBM include its promise of better patient outcomes through better informed clinicians and the idea that public health policy based on EBM can support equity and minimize waste of resources. Ethical critiques of EBM note that despite its potential for reducing particular forms of bias, the research upon which EBM is based is often industry funded, creating conflicts of interest that are associated with new sources of bias. These include bias in the conduct of trials, the publication of results, and the choice of interventions for investigation. EBM also poses challenges for patient and clinician autonomy, especially where evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are enforced through targets or audits. In the face of these concerns, EBM is under pressure to reestablish its credibility. The chapter ends by identifying three current initiatives that seek to reinstate the aims of EBM to better inform healthcare decisions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AllTrials (2013) Missing trial data – briefing notes. http://www.alltrials.net//wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Missing-trials-briefing-note.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2014
AllTrials (2014) http://www.alltrials.net/. Accessed 20 Aug 2014
Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE et al (2000) Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 355:1064–1069
Bradford Hill A (1965) The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58(5):295–300
Broadbent A (2013) Philosophy of epidemiology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Burke M, Matlin S (eds) (2008) Monitoring financial flows for health research 2008. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research. http://www.globalforumhealth.org/filesupld/MFF08/MonitoringFinancialFlows2008.pdf
Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination (1979) The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J 121:1193–1254
Cartwright N (2010) What are randomised controlled trials good for? Philos Stud 147(1):59–70
Cartwright N (2011) A philosopher’s view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. Lancet 377:1400–1401
Charles C, Gafni A, Freeman E (2011) The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching? J Eval Clin Pract 17(4):597–605
Cohen AM, Stavri PZ, Hersh WR (2004) A categorisation and analysis of the criticisms of evidence-based medicine. Int J Med Inform 73:35–43
Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D et al (1995) Evidence-based medicine. BMJ 310(6987):1085–1086
De Vries R, Lemmens T (2006) The social and cultural shaping of medical evidence: case studies from pharmaceutical research and obstetric science. Soc Sci Med 62(11):2694–2706
Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH, Ashcroft RE (2009) Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control 16(2):158–168
Edwards A, Elwyn E (eds) (2001) Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible? Oxford University Press, Oxford
Elliott C, Abadie R (2008) Exploiting a research underclass in phase 1 clinical trials. N Engl J Med 358(22):2316–2317
Every-Palmer S, Howick J (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract. doi:10.1111/jep.12147
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268(17):2420–2425
Goldacre B (2013) Are clinical trial data shared sufficiently today? No. BMJ 347:f1880
Goodman KW (2003) Ethics and evidence-based medicine: fallibility and responsibility in clinical science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N (2014) Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 348:g3725
Gupta M (2003) A critical appraisal of evidence-based medicine: some ethical considerations. J Eval Clin Pract 9(2):111–121
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926
Hamburg MA, Collins FS (2010) The path to personalised medicine. N Engl J Med 363(4):301–304
Hardaway RM (2004) Wound shock: a history of its study and treatment by military surgeons. Mil Med 169(4):265–269
Hayes RB (2002) What kind of evidence is it that evidence-based medicine advocates want health care providers and consumers to pay attention to? BMC Health Serv Res 2(3). doi:10.1186/1472-6963-2-3
Healy D, Cattell D (2003) Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 183:22–27
Hope T (1995) Evidence based medicine and ethics. J Med Ethics 21(5):259–260
Howick J (2011) The philosophy of evidence based medicine. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford
Howick J, Glasziou P, Aronson JK (2013) Problems with using mechanisms to solve the problem of extrapolation. Theor Med Bioeth 34(4):275–291
Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ et al (1999) Under representation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med 341(27):2061–2067
Johnson J, Rogers W (2014) Joint issues – conflicts of interest, the ASR hip and suggestions for managing surgical conflicts of interest. BMC Med Ethics 15:63. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-63
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality. BMJ 326:1167–1170
Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J et al (2011) The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Pers Med 8(2):161–173
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:332–336
Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP (2004) Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 291(22):2720–2726
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2001/2010) Levels of evidence. Brit J Urol 105:155
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011) The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed 11 Aug 2014
Owen W, Szczech L, Frankenfield D (2002) Healthcare system interventions for inequality in quality: corrective action through evidence based medicine. J Natl Med Assoc 94:83S–91S
Petryna A (2007) Clinical trials offshored: on private sector science and public health. BioSocieties 2:21–40
Pocock SJ, Simon R (1975) Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 31(1):103–115
Rogers WA (2004) Evidence-based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the impact of EBM on vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. J Med Ethics 30:141–145
Rogers WA, Ballantyne AJ (2009) Justice in health research: what is the role of evidence-based medicine? Perspect Biol Med 52(2):188–202
Rosenberg W, Donald A (1995) Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ 310(6987):1122–1126
Sackett DL (1989) Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 95(2 Suppl):2S–4S
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM et al (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312(7023):71–72
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152(11):726–732
Sehon SR, Stanley DE (2003) A philosophical analysis of the evidence-based medicine debate. BMC Health Serv Res 3:1–10
Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P (2000) Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 355:2037–2040
Topol EJ (2004) Failing the public health – rofecoxib, merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med 351(17):1707–1709
Trouiller P, Olliaro P, Torreele E et al (2002) Drug development for neglected diseases: a deficient market and a public-health policy failure. Lancet 359(9324):2188–2194
Worrall J (2007) Why there’s no cause to randomize. Br J Philos Sci 58:451–488
Worrall J (2011) Causality in medicine: getting back to the hill top. Prev Med 53:235–238
Wyer PC, Silva SA (2009) Where is the wisdom? I – a conceptual history of evidence-based medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 15(6):891–898
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Rogers, W., Hutchison, K. (2017). Evidence-Based Medicine in Theory and Practice: Epistemological and Normative Issues. In: Schramme, T., Edwards, S. (eds) Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8688-1_40
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8688-1_40
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8687-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8688-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities