Contents

Talk:Evidence-based medicine

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evidence-based medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evidence-based medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601140339/http://www.nyuhjdbulletin.org/Permalink.aspx?permalinkId=07a150ec-2275-4bbf-9003-6ea200b62a4ftohttp://www.nyuhjdbulletin.org/Permalink.aspx?permalinkId=07a150ec-2275-4bbf-9003-6ea200b62a4f
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150512021122/http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/patcomp.htmltohttp://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/patcomp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evidence-based medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429042527/http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1246tohttp://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1246

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evidence-based medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018181622/http://skynet.ohsu.edu/~hersh/ijmi-04-ebm.pdftohttp://skynet.ohsu.edu/~hersh/ijmi-04-ebm.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As a component of #1lib1ref, I added three links to journal articles related to EBM education. I also made some minor edits, to spellings and titles of resources that have evolved. Lauren maggio (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit from a discussion of the role of metascientific research in evidence-based medicine. Metascience raises many valid criticisms of the field and offers up solutions. The importance of metascience to EBM cannot be understated.

No it doesn't. It goes to an article about a website. What should we say? Myclob (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine has always been, lato sensu, evidence-based. Therefore, referring to this content as an innovation is not correct. The only differential that can be added (to the EBM) is the fulfillment of the requirements of the adapted bacon-cartesian scientific methodological rite, allied to the dedicated focus on the demand for its knowledge and efforts aimed at an in situ situation. Aainitio (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: “ Despite the emphasis on evidence-based medicine, unsafe or ineffective medical practices continue to be applied, because of patient demand for tests or treatments […]”. This seems completely arbitrary and absolutely unfair. Especially considering the medic-patient relationship typical of modern medicine, in which the patient generally has very little say. 2.84.49.199 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is directly from that sentence's cited source. Kimen8 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of the cited source is that CLINICIANS don’t take research results seriously enough, not PATIENTS. Has anybody read it? That is what the cited article states, with the support of several scientific studies. I cite from the source you mention:

“The list goes on: A brand new review of 48 separate studies — comprising more than 13,000 clinicians — looked at how doctors perceive disease-screening tests and found that they tend to underestimatethe potential harms of screening and overestimate the potential benefits;”

“The University of California, San Francisco, conducted 90-minute focus groups with cardiologists to answer that question. […]The cardiologists, including those whose incomes were not tied to tests and procedures, gave the same answers: They said that they were aware of the data but would still send the patient for a stent.”

Ironic that an article about evidence-based medicine managed to turn its own evidence upside down. Besides, nobody can seriously think that the main obstacle to EBM are its patients, instead of the clinicians; the word Medicine in EBM stands for the doctors, the shift EBM invokes is about them. Otherwise we would talk about evidence-based patients. 2.84.49.199 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]