Skip to main content

Is Evidence-Based Medicine Broken?

Last month, when the British Medical Journal asked its readers whether evidence-based medicine – defined by David Sackett as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” – is broken, the responses were almost evenly split. What is the problem?

LONDON – Evidence-based medicine, as David Sackett and his colleagues wrote in 1996, is “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” At first glance, this seems entirely logical; indeed, many would say that this simply could be called “medicine.” But the approach is generating considerable controversy, with many asserting that it is “broken.” Last month, when the British Medical Journal asked its readers whether evidence-based medicine is malfunctioning, the responses were almost evenly split: 51% answered positively, and 49% negatively.

The controversy stems from the kind of evidence that is used. Sackett implies, but does not stipulate, that epidemiological evidence (findings from randomized controlled trials and large-cohort studies carried out over many years) should underpin doctors’ decisions about patients – and, one hopes, in consultation with them.

Epidemiological research studies address questions like, “If 1,000 people with type 2 diabetes were randomly allocated to four groups of 250 people that each received either no treatment (or a placebo), drug A, drug B, or drug C for ten years, how would it impact survival rates, and what, if any, complications and side effects would there be?” If the trial is conducted properly – it is large enough; people are allocated in a truly random way; and “blind” assessments of the outcomes are conducted – the results should be reliable.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Subscribe

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

https://prosyn.org/wjtN772;
  1. mallochbrown10_ANDREW MILLIGANAFPGetty Images_boris johnson cow Andrew Milligan/AFP/Getty Images

    Brexit House of Cards

    Mark Malloch-Brown

    Following British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament, and an appeals court ruling declaring that act unlawful, the United Kingdom finds itself in a state of political frenzy. With rational decision-making having become all but impossible, any new political agreement that emerges is likely to be both temporary and deeply flawed.

    1
  2. sufi2_getty Images_graph Getty Images

    Could Ultra-Low Interest Rates Be Contractionary?

    Ernest Liu, et al.

    Although low interest rates have traditionally been viewed as positive for economic growth because they encourage businesses to invest in enhancing productivity, this may not be the case. Instead, Ernest Liu, Amir Sufi, and Atif Mian contend, extremely low rates may lead to slower growth by increasing market concentration and thus weakening firms' incentive to boost productivity.

    4

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated Cookie policy, Privacy policy and Terms & Conditions