Benítez-Bribiesca L

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 263-268
PDF size: 87.11 Kb.

ABSTRACT

A great deal of enthusiasm has been generated by a learning strategy named Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). It is claimed that EBM is a new paradigm that has revolutionized the practice of medicine. In this essay we review the most stringent criticisms to these claims, opposing the generalized optimism prevalent amongst the followers of this trend. EBM is neither a new paradigm nor a revolutionary way of practicing medicine. It should be remembered that medicine has sought the best evidence available throughout history. The evidence used by EBM is only that based on meta-analysis and randomized clinical trials and ignores other types of useful evidence such as basic research and clinical experience. Promoting EBM as a new way of practicing medicine is treacherous and endangers the classical approach of the patient-physician relationship.

REFERENCES

1. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992; 268: 2420.

2. Sackett D, Rosenbarg WMC, Gray JAM, Hayners RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312: 71.

3. Benítez-Bribiesca L. Evidence-Based Medicine: A new Paradigm? Arch Med Res 1999; 30: 77-79.

4. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol 1997; 21: 3.

5. Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, Smith R. Evidence-Based Medicine. BMJ 1995; 310: 1085-1086.

6. Bynum WF. Science and the practice of medicina in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press; 1994.

7. Aréchiga H y cols. Ciencia y Humanismo. México: Siglo XXI Eds.; 2003.

8. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.

9. Cohen AM, Stavri PZ, Hersh WR. A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of evidence-based medicine. Med Informat 2004; 73: 35-43.

10. Feinstein AR. The Santayama syndrome II: Problems in reasoning and learning about error. Perspect Biol Med 1997; 41: 73-85.

11. Pinter GG, Pinter V. From epistemology to rational science policy: Popper versus Kuhn. Perspect Biol Med 1998; 41: 291-298.

12. Benítez-Bribiesca L. Are case reports obsolete? Arch Med Res 1998; 29: 105.

13. Feinstein AR. Santayana syndrome I: Errors in getting and interpreting evidence. Perspect Biol Med 1997; 41: 45-57.

14. Taubes G. The (political) science of salt. Science 1998; 281: 898.

15. McCarron DA. Diet and blood pressure. The paradigm shift. Science 1998; 281: 933.

16. Gibbs WW. Lost science in the third world. Sci Am 1995; 273: 76.

17. Tsafrir J, Grinberg M. Who needs evidence-based health care? Bull Med Libr Assoc 1998; 86: 40.

18. Isenman LD. Toward an understanding of intuition and its importance in scientific endeavor. Perspect Biol Med 1997; 40: 395-403.

19. Spiro HM. Saintliness and sanity. Sci Med 1998; 5: 2.

20. Naylor CD. Clinical decisions: from art to science and back again. Lancet 2001; 358: 523-524.

21. Popper KK. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Londres: Hutchinson; 1959.

22. Kenny NP. Does good science make good medicine? Incorporating evidence into practice is complicated by the fact that clinical practice is as much art as science. CMAJ 1997; 157: 33-36.

23. Pehon SR, Stanley DE. A philosophical analysis of the evidence-based medicine debate. BMC Health Serv Res http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/3/14.