Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/10685
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBagshaw, Sean Men
dc.contributor.authorBellomo, Rinaldoen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-16T00:13:02Z
dc.date.available2015-05-16T00:13:02Z
dc.date.issued2008-09-30en
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine : Pehm 2008; 3(): 23en
dc.identifier.govdoc18826605en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/10685en
dc.description.abstractThe ideology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has dramatically altered the way we think, conceptualize, philosophize and practice medicine. One of its major pillars is the appraisal and classification of evidence. Although important and beneficial, this process currently lacks detail and is in need of reform. In particular, it largely focuses on three key dimensions (design, [type I] alpha error and beta [type II] error) to grade the quality of evidence and often omits other crucial aspects of evidence such as biological plausibility, reproducibility, generalizability, temporality, consistency and coherence. It also over-values the randomized trial and meta-analytical techniques, discounts the biasing effect of single centre execution and gives insufficient weight to large and detailed observational studies. Unless these aspects are progressively included into systems for grading, evaluating and classifying evidence and duly empirically assessed (according to the EBM paradigm), the EBM process and movement will remain open to criticism of being more evidence-biased than evidence-based."All scientific work is incomplete--whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time". (Sir Bradford Austin Hill 1).en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherEvidence-Based Medicine.standardsen
dc.subject.otherHumansen
dc.subject.otherMeta-Analysis as Topicen
dc.subject.otherRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicen
dc.titleThe need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials: a commentary.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHMen
dc.identifier.affiliationrinaldo.bellomo@med.monash.edu.auen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1747-5341-3-23en
dc.description.pages23en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18826605en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
local.name.researcherBellomo, Rinaldo
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
crisitem.author.deptIntensive Care-
crisitem.author.deptData Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
18826605.pdf286.16 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

28
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Download(s)

62
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.