Premium
Evidence‐based medicine: the need for a new definition
Author(s) -
Buetow S.,
Kenealy T.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00237.x
Subject(s) - evidence based medicine , scientific evidence , compromise , empirical evidence , rules of evidence , evidence based practice , complement (music) , psychology , epistemology , best evidence , evidence based management , medline , engineering ethics , medicine , alternative medicine , political science , law , medical education , philosophy , pathology , biochemistry , chemistry , complementation , gene , phenotype , engineering
Evidence is defined by its ability to establish or support conclusions. Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) equates evidence with scientific evidence and views factors such as clinical expertise as important in moving from evidence to action. In contrast, we suggest that EBM should acknowledge multiple dimensions of evidence including scientific evidence, theoretic evidence, practical evidence, expert evidence, judicial evidence and ethics‐based evidence. What EBM loses by not acknowledging these dimensions as evidence is the ability, among other things, to make and defend judgements based on understandings that complement science and are no less important than those science can offer. We argue for a new definition of EBM that, without forced accommodation or unacceptable compromise, acknowledges dimensions of evidence produced within and outside science.