Corroborating evidence-based medicine

Journal article

Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have argued convincingly for applying this scientific method to medicine. However, the current methodological framework of the EBM movement has recently been called into question, especially in epidemiology and the philosophy of science. The debate has focused on whether the methodology of randomized controlled trials provides the best evidence available. This paper attempts to shift the focus of the debate by arguing that clinical reasoning involves a patchwork of evidential approaches and that the emphasis on evidence hierarchies of methodology fails to lend credence to the common practice of corroboration in medicine. I argue that the strength of evidence lies in the evidence itself, and not the methodology used to obtain that evidence. Ultimately, when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of medical interventions, it is the evidence obtained from the methodology rather than the methodology that should establish the strength of the evidence.

Authors: Mebius, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Wiley
• Journal: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
• Volume: 20
• Issue: 6
• Pages: 915-920
• Publication date: 2014-12-01
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.12129
• EISSN: 1365-2753
• ISSN: 1356-1294
• Language: English
• Keywords: randomized control trials; quality of evidence; meta-analysis; mechanisms; evidence-based medicine; corroboration
• Subjects: Organisation and evaluation of medical care; Evaluation of social policies,programmes and practice; Epidemiology; Philosophy