Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine
University of Oxford.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0280-7206
Florida Atlantic University.
Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9730-2133
2015 (English)In: Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy / [ed] Duncan Pritchard, Oxford University Press, 2015Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Since its introduction just over two decades ago, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has come to dominate medical practice, teaching, and policy. There are a growing number of textbooks, journals, and websites dedicated to EBM research, teaching, and evidence dissemination. EBM was most recently defined as a method that integrates best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values and circumstances in the treatment of patients. There have been debates throughout the early 21st century about what counts as good research evidence between EBM proponents and philosophical critics and even within the EBM community itself. Similar controversy arises about the relative worth of patient values and clinical expertise (and how these can be integrated). EBM has also evolved in ways that have come under scrutiny. Specifically, policymakers have used EBM research methodology to increase the relative importance of clinical guidelines that some clinicians have argued are tyrannical. Philosophers have addressed all of these controversies, and with very few exceptions have been critical of EBM. In addition most philosophical attention has been on the epistemic role of Randomization and evidence hierarchies, with relatively little attention being paid to the role of Diagnosis, expertise, patient values, and Systematic Reviews within EBM.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2015.
National Category
Philosophy Medical Ethics Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-162119DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0253OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-162119DiVA: diva2:797068
Note

QC 20150323

Available from: 2015-03-22 Created: 2015-03-22 Last updated: 2017-04-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textOxford Bibliographies

Authority records BETA

Howick, JeremyMebius, Alexander

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Howick, JeremyMebius, Alexander
By organisation
Philosophy
PhilosophyMedical EthicsPublic Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 42 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf