Talk:Evidence-based medicine

External links modified
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-9003-6ea200b62a4f to http://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.html to http://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.

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

External links modified
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/30/6/1246 to http://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.

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

External links modified
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.pdf to http://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.

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

Added external references and minor language changes
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)

Metascience
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.

re: "Science-based medicine" redirects here"
No it doesn't. It goes to an article about a website. What should we say? Myclob (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence-based medicine is tautology...
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)

Guilty Patients
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)


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