Where is the wisdom? II - Evidence-based medicine and the epistemological crisis in clinical medicine. Exposition and commentary on Djulbegovic, B., Guyatt, G. H. & Ashcroft, R. E. (2009) Cancer Control, 16, 158-168

Professional judgement in clinical practice (part 3): A better alternative to strong evidence-based medicine

Parts 1 and 2 in this series of three articles have shown that and how strong evidence-based medicine has neither a coherent theoretical foundation nor creditable application to clinical practice. Because of its core commitment to the discredited positivist tradition it holds both a false concept of scientific knowledge and misunderstandings concerning clinical decision-making. Strong EBM continues attempts to use flawed adjustments to recover from the unsalvageable base view. Paper three argues that a promising solution is at hand if we can manage several modes of inclusion. A modified original, moderate version of EBM continues though usually overshadowed. As definitively laid out by Sackett in the 1990s, clinical decision making is intended to be person-centered, recognizing and integrating multiple modes of evidence and knowledge that have been marginalized: professional experience, illness narratives, and individual patients' values and preferences. Complementary resources are at hand: interpretative understanding and practice, such as philosophical anthropology, hermeneutical phenomenology, complexity theory, and phronetic practices respond to the major problems and open new possibilities. Phronesis is especially important in regard to public decision making. Within part 3 an additional tone necessarily occurs. While most of papers 1, 2, and 3 are written in the classical mode of contrasting the theoretical-logical and empirical evidence offered by contending positions bearing on the decision making and judgement in clinical practice, a shift occurs when considerations move beyond what is possible for clinical practitioners to accomplish. A different, discontinuous level of power operates in the trans-personal realm of instrumental policy, insurance, and hospital management practices. In this social-economic-political-ethical realm what happens in clinical practice today increasingly becomes a matter of what is "done unto" clinical practitioners, of what hampers their professional action and thus care of individual patients and clients.

Professional judgement in clinical practice (part 2): knowledge into practice

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Though strong evidence-based medicine is assertive in its claims, an insufficient theoretical basis and patchwork of arguments provide a good case that rather than introducing a new paradigm, EBM is resisting a shift to actually revolutionary complexity theory and other emergent approaches. This refusal to pass beyond discredited positivism is manifest in strong EBM's unsuccessful attempts to continually modify its already inadequate previous modifications, as did the defenders of the Ptolemaic astronomical model who increased the number of circular epicycles until the entire epicycle-deferent system proved untenable.

METHODS

Narrative Review.

RESULTS

The analysis in Part 1 of this three part series showed epistemological confusion as strong EBM plays the discredited positivistic tradition out to the end, thus repeating in a medical sphere and vocabulary the major assumptions and inadequacies that have appeared in the trajectory of modern science. Paper 2 in this series examines application, attending to strong EBM's claim of direct transferability of EBM research findings to clinical settings and its assertion of epistemological normativity. EBM's contention that it provides the "only valid" approach to knowledge and action is questioned by analyzing the troubled story of proposed hierarchies of the quality of research findings (especially of RCTs, with other factors marginalized), which falsely identifies evaluating findings with operationally utilizing them in clinical recommendations and decision-making. Further, its claim of carrying over its normative guidelines to cover the ethical responsibilities of researchers and clinicians is questioned.

Professional judgement in clinical practice (part 1): Recovering original, moderate evidence-based health care

Evidence-based medicine announced its entry as heralding a new paradigm in health care practices, but it has been widely criticized for lacking a coherent theoretical basis. This paper presents the first part of a three-article series examining the epistemological, practical, and ethical dimensions of strong EBM, as well as considering alternatives that promise potential solutions to chronic conceptual and practical problems. While the focus is on the details of the arguments and evidence in thoughtful debates over the last 30 years, it is worthwhile to keep in mind the overall trajectory of modern thought, because strong EBM continues discredited positivist positions, thus repeating its major assumptions and inadequacies, now transferred to the medical sphere and vocabulary. Part 1 of the series examines the development of strong EBM by clarifying and critiquing its somewhat discontinuous accounts of scientific knowledge and epistemology, evidence, the differences between statistical probability in regard to populations and understanding the health of individuals, and its claims for direct transfer of research findings to clinical settings-all of which raises more questions regarding its application to provider-patient decision making, pedagogy, and policy.

Evidence-based medicine-Not a panacea for the problems of a complex adaptive world

The recent sacking of Peter Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration Board raised strong responses and highlights the neglected issue about priorities-maintaining the reputation of the organization or vigorously debating the merits of scientific approaches to find answers to complex problems? The Cochrane approach hales the randomized trial (RCT) as the gold standard research approach and affirms that meta-analysis provides the ultimate proof (or platinum standard) to settle contentious issues confronting the clinician. However, most published medical research is wrong, and critics coined the acronym GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as a meme to highlight the risks of blind faith in the hyped-up procedures of the EBM movement. This paper firstly explores the differences between the prevailing scientific method arising from the linear cause-and-effect assumption and the complex adaptive systems science methods arising from observations that most phenomena emerge from nonlinearity in networked systems. Most medical conditions are characterized by necessary features that by themselves are not sufficient to explain their nature and behaviour. Such nonlinear phenomena require modelling approaches rather than linear statistical and/or meta-analysis approaches to be understood. These considerations also highlight that research is largely stuck at the data and information levels of understanding which fails clinicians who depend on knowledge-the synthesis of information-to apply in an adaptive way in the clinical encounter. Clinicians are constantly confronted with the linked challenges of doing things right and doing the right thing for their patients. EBM and Cochrane with their restrictive approaches are the antithesis to a practice of medicine that is responsive to constantly changing patient needs. As such, the EBM/Cochrane crisis opens a window of opportunity to re-examine the nature of health, illness and disease, and the nature of health care and its systems for the benefits of its professionals and their patients. We are at the cusp of a paradigmatic shift towards an understanding a praxis of health care that takes account of its complexities.

From MARS to MAGIC: The remarkable journey through time and space of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation initiative

For over 30 years, "evidence-based" clinical guidelines remained entrenched in an oversimplified, design-based, framework for rating the strength of evidence supporting clinical recommendations. The approach frequently equated the rating of evidence with that of the recommendations themselves. "Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)" has emerged as a proposed antidote to obsolete guideline methodology. GRADE sponsors and collaborators are in the process of attempting to amplify and extend the framework to encompass implementation and adaptation of guidelines, above and beyond the evaluation and rating of clinical research. Alternative schemes and models for such extensions are beginning to appear. This commentary reviews the strengths and weaknesses of GRADE with reference to other recent critiques. It considers the GRADE Working Group's "evidence-to-decision" extension of the evidence rating framework, together with proposed alternatives. It identifies pitfalls of the GRADE system's cooptation of relational processes necessary to the interpretation and uptake of recommendations that properly belong to end-users. It also identifies dangers inherent in blurring important boundaries between clinical and policy applications of guidelines. Finally, it addresses criticisms regarding the lack of a theoretical framework supporting the different facets of the GRADE approach and proposes a social constructivist orientation to clinical guideline development and use. Recommendations are offered to potential guideline developers and users regarding how to draw upon the strengths of the GRADE framework without succumbing to its pitfalls.

'All the King's horses . . .’: the problematical fate of born-again evidence-based medicine: commentary on Greenhalgh, T., Snow, R., Ryan, S., Rees, S., and Salisbury, H. (2015) six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BioMed Central Medicine, 13:200

The phrase ‘evidence-based medicine (EBM)’ is being used by both EBM advocates and adversaries to broadly denote the production and use of clinical research throughout the healthcare system. Recently, this trend was joined by a call for a general expansion and rebirth of EBM to encompass a diverse range of healthcare activities otherwise corresponding to person-centred care. The call asserts that EBM is to blame for anti-patient biases within clinical practice and in policy and public health domains. Effective critique of either EBM or of the healthcare system requires that EBM itself be properly identified as a research literacy movement that grew out of clinical epidemiology of the 1970’s and 1980’s. We demonstrate the ineffectiveness of inappropriately targeted critiques of healthcare under the banner of born-again EBM.We identify the strengths and weaknesses of EBM as an educational movement drawing on the concept of literacy associated with the Brazilian educator Paolo Freire. We consider the relationship of EBM to clinical epidemiology and conclude that it cannot fruitfully divorce itself from the latter.We briefly consider existing precedents for philosophically sound conceptual platforms for advocacy of person-centred healthcare and broad based critique of the healthcare system including relationship-centred care. We conclude that traditional EBM, as a framework for research literacy training of both clinicians and policy makers, must continue to play a subsidiary role within an expanding patient-centred healthcare system and that advocacy efforts on behalf of patient voice and engagement are best pursued unencumbered by subsidiary agendas.

Reconciling evidence-based medicine and patient-centred care: defining evidence-based inputs to patient-centred decisions

Evidence-based and patient-centred health care movements have each enhanced the discussion of how health care might best be delivered, yet the two have evolved separately and, in some views, remain at odds with each other. No clear model has emerged to enable practitioners to capitalize on the advantages of each so actual practice often becomes, to varying degrees, an undefined mishmash of each. When faced with clinical uncertainty, it becomes easy for practitioners to rely on formulas for care developed explicitly by expert panels, or on the tacit ones developed from experience or habit. Either way, these tendencies towards 'cookbook' medicine undermine the view of patients as unique particulars, and diminish what might be considered patient-centred care. The sequence in which evidence is applied in the care process, however, is critical for developing a model of care that is both evidence based and patient centred. This notion derives from a paradigm for knowledge delivery and patient care developed over decades by Dr. Lawrence Weed. Weed's vision enables us to view evidence-based and person-centred medicine as wholly complementary, using computer tools to more fully and reliably exploit the vast body of collective knowledge available to define patients' uniqueness and identify the options to guide patients. The transparency of the approach to knowledge delivery facilitates meaningful practitioner-patient dialogue in determining the appropriate course of action. Such a model for knowledge delivery and care is essential for integrating evidence-based and patient-centred approaches.

Evidence-based medicine: is it a bridge too far?

AIMS

This paper aims to describe the contextual factors that gave rise to evidence-based medicine (EBM), as well as its controversies and limitations in the current health context. Our analysis utilizes two frameworks: (1) a complex adaptive view of health that sees both health and healthcare as non-linear phenomena emerging from their different components; and (2) the unified approach to the philosophy of science that provides a new background for understanding the differences between the phases of discovery, corroboration, and implementation in science.

RESULTS

The need for standardization, the development of clinical epidemiology, concerns about the economic sustainability of health systems and increasing numbers of clinical trials, together with the increase in the computer's ability to handle large amounts of data, have paved the way for the development of the EBM movement. It was quickly adopted on the basis of authoritative knowledge rather than evidence of its own capacity to improve the efficiency and equity of health systems. The main problem with the EBM approach is the restricted and simplistic approach to scientific knowledge, which prioritizes internal validity as the major quality of the studies to be included in clinical guidelines. As a corollary, the preferred method for generating evidence is the explanatory randomized controlled trial. This method can be useful in the phase of discovery but is inadequate in the field of implementation, which needs to incorporate additional information including expert knowledge, patients' values and the context.

CONCLUSION

EBM needs to move forward and perceive health and healthcare as a complex interaction, i.e. an interconnected, non-linear phenomenon that may be better analysed using a variety of complexity science techniques.

'One mission accomplished, more important ones remain': commentary on Every-Palmer, S., Howick, J. (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20 (6), 908-914

Every-Palmer and Howick suggest that evidence-based medicine (EBM) is failing in its mission because of contamination of research by manufacturer and researcher-motivated bias and self-interest. They fail to define that mission and to distinguish between the EBM movement and the research enterprise it was developed to critique. An educational movement, EBM accomplished its mission to simplify and package clinical epidemiological concepts in a form accessible to clinical learners. Its wide adoption within educational circles fostered critical literacy among several generations of practitioners. Illumination of bias, subterfuge and incomplete reporting of research has been a strength of EBM. Increased uptake and use of clinical research within the health care system properly defines the failing mission that eludes Every-Palmer and Howick. Responsibility for failure to make progress towards its achievement is shared by virtually all relevant streams within the system, including policy, clinical guideline development, educational movements and the development of approaches to evidence synthesis. Discordance between the epistemological premises pervading today's research and health care community and the complex social processes that ultimately determine research use constitutes an important factor that must be addressed as part of a remedy. Enhanced emphasis on and demonstration of alternative approaches to research such as realism and realist synthesis and the momentum towards development of a learning health care system hold promise as guideposts for the rapidly evolving health care environment.

Relationship-centred care: antidote, guidepost or blind alley? The epistemology of 21st century health care

Contemporary health care is increasing in complexity and lacks a unifying understanding of epistemology, methodology and goals. Lack of conceptual consistency in concepts such as 'patient-centred care' (PCC) typifies system-wide discordance. We contrast the fragmented descriptions of PCC and related tools to its own origins in the writings of Balint and to a subsequent construct, relationship-centred care (RCC). We identify the explicit and elaborated connection between RCC and a defined epistemological foundation as a distinguishing feature of the construct and we demonstrate that this makes possible the recognition of alignments between RCC and independently developed constructs. Among these, we emphasize Schon's reflective practice, Nonaka's theory of organizational knowledge creation and the research methodology of realist synthesis. We highlight the relational principles common to these domains and to their common epistemologies and illustrate unsatisfying consequences of adherence to less adequate epistemological frameworks such as positivism. We offer RCC not as an 'antidote' to the dilemmas identified at the outset but as an example that illuminates the value and importance of explicit identification of the premises and assumptions underlying approaches to improvement of the health care system. We stress the potential value of identifying epistemological affinities across otherwise disparate fields and disciplines.

The evidence-based medicine model of clinical practice: scientific teaching or belief-based preaching?

RATIONALE

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is commonly advocated as a 'gold standard' of clinical practice. A prominent definition of EBM is: the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Over time, various versions of a conceptual model or framework for implementing EBM (i.e. how to practice EBM) have been developed.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper (i) traces the evolution of the different versions of the conceptual model; (ii) tries to make explicit the underlying goals, assumptions and logic of the various versions by exploring the definitions and meaning of the components identified in each model, and the methods suggested for integrating these into clinical practice; and (iii) offers an analytic critique of the various model iterations.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to identify, summarize, and compare the content of articles and books discussing EBM as a conceptual model to guide physicians in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that the EBM model of clinical practice, as it has evolved over time, is largely belief-based, because it is lacking in empirical evidence and theoretical support. The model is not well developed and articulated in terms of defining model components, justifying their inclusion and suggesting ways to integrate these in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

These findings are significant because without a model that clearly defines what constitutes an EBM approach to clinical practice we cannot (i) consistently teach clinicians how to do it and (ii) evaluate whether it is being done.

The marriage of evidence and narrative: scientific nurturance within clinical practice

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Published elaborations of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have failed to materially integrate the domains of interpersonal sensibility and relationship with tools intended to facilitate attention to biomedical research and knowledge within clinical practice. Furthermore, the elaboration of EBM skills has been confined to a narrow range of clinical research. As a result, crucial tools required to connect much clinically relevant research and practice remain hidden, and explorations of the deeper challenges faced by practitioners in their struggle to integrate sound science and shared clinical action remain elusive.

METHODS

We developed a model for scientifically informed, individualized, medical practice and learning that embraces the goals, resources and skills of EBM within a larger framework of practice defined by narrative process: 'attention', 'representation' and 'affiliation'. We drew from published elaborations of EBM, narrative medicine (NM) and the results of a project to develop tools for assessment of the cognitive skills embedded within a practice based EBM domain.

RESULTS

Within the resulting model, a tool of representation, whose components are Problem delineation, Actions, Choices and Targets, enables the clinical problem to be delineated and the patient and practitioner perspectives to be concretely defined with reference to four classes of clinical interaction: 'therapy', 'diagnosis', 'prognosis' and 'harm'. As a result, the 'information literacy' skills required to access, evaluate and apply clinical research using electronic resources are well defined but subordinated to shared appreciation of patient need. The model acknowledges the relevance of the full range and scope of scientifically derived medical knowledge.

CONCLUSION

A model based on integration of NM and EBM can lead to instructional tools that integrate clinical epidemiological knowledge with enforced consideration of differing patient and practitioner perspectives. It also may inform avenues for qualitative research into the processes through which such differing perspectives can be productively identified and shared.

Where is the wisdom? I--a conceptual history of evidence-based medicine

Rationale Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been acclaimed as a major advance in medical science, but criticized as a proposed alternative model for the practice and teaching of medicine. Ambiguity regarding the proper role of the contributions of EBM within the fabric of medicine and health care has contributed to this discrepancy. Aims and objectives We undertook a critical review of the history of the EBM movement, beginning with its origins in the 1970s and continuing through this century. We drew upon the results of an independent project that rationalized the EBM domain from the perspective of educational evaluation and assessment. We considered the content of EBM in relationship to the propositions and promises embodied in advocacy publications. Results EBM emerged in the context of the explosion of biomedical information in the decade preceding public access to the Internet in the mid-1990s and drew upon the independently derived 'information literacy' formula developed by information scientists during the 1980s. The critically important content and achievements of EBM are fully explained within the confines of the information literacy model. The thesis that EBM offers an alternative paradigm for individualized health care, asserted in the advocacy literature, is not supported by published models of evidence-based clinical practice. Conclusion A critical historical review of the origins, content and development of the EBM movement proposes that full integration of the fruits of the movement into routine clinical care remains a conceptual and practical challenge.