'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

On crowns, caravans and windmills: Commentary on an essay by Turcotte P., et al

Patient-oriented research (POR) is a trend that has emerged over several decades and is particularly prominent in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. It involves patient and other stakeholder participation in the planning, conduct and dissemination of biomedical and health services research and it can be seen as a form of public participation and engagement in activities that affect the lives and well-being of communities. Criticisms of POR revolve around its susceptibility to tokenistic treatment of patient participants and paternalistic dominance of the research agenda by professional researchers, academics and clinicians. This commentary addresses one such critique by situating the POR agenda within the challenges and dilemmas faced by the health-related research enterprise over the past 30 years. It will explore the interface between POR, community activism and community-based participatory research. The contextual importance of the COVID-19 pandemic experience is stressed. The commentary will particularly focus on the US-based Patient Centred Outcomes Research Institute, its origins within a movement to enhance emphasis on publicly funded comparative effectiveness research, and its more recent evolution in the direction of community empowerment in POR.

Evidence-based medicine and problem based learning a critical re-evaluation

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been the subject of controversy since it was introduced in 1992. However, it has yet to be critically examined as an alternative paradigm for medical education, which is how it was proposed. This commentary examines EBM on the terms on which it was originally advanced and within the context that gave rise to it, the problem-based learning (PBL) environment at McMaster University in the 1970s and 80s. The EBM educational prescription is revealed to be aligned with the information processing psychology (IPP) model of learning through acquisition of general problem solving skills that characterized the early McMaster version of PBL. The IPP model has been identified in the literature as discordant with an alternative, constructivist, model that emerged at Maastricht University in the Netherlands over the subsequent period. Strengths and weaknesses of EBM are identified from the standpoint of the underlying cognitive theories. Principles are proposed with which to guide an educationally viable approach to learning and teaching the valuable skills included within the original EBM formula.

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.

Diseases, patients and the epistemology of practice: mapping the borders of health, medicine and care

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy 'at the bedside'? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions - about what we should do in any given situation - are embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case (metaphysics), what it is that we feel we can claim to know (epistemology), as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition.