Evidence-based medicine: the clue is in the name

Keane and Berg¹ have taken issue with the scientific basis of medicine. Their premise is built on the following three challenges: that 'science' (in particular, the randomized controlled trial) is fundamentally unsuited to complex health care; that the evolutionary processes described in economics are a better fit to health care; and that attempts to grade recommendations are unnecessary and unhelpful. Their editorial raises genuine concerns and merits careful reading. But this perhaps presents a Utopian fallacy; evidence-based medicine isn't perfect so it must be replaced. The term 'evidence-based medicine' is frequently misused, misapplied, and misunderstood. Evidence-based medicine (if it is to live up to its name) should be open to scrutiny and challenge. It is certainly not a religious creed that cannot be questioned. Unthinking misapplication of 'evidence' leads both directly and indirectly to poor patient outcomes. Evidence-based medicine has many definitions, but Masic and colleagues² described it well: 'Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Evidence based medicine integrates clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information.'

http://ift.tt/2y0CTNX