1 This paper has relied on the two in-depth English language accounts of EBM that are published in book form (Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, and The Users’ Guide to the Medical Literature). However, EBM is undergoing ongoing revision through debates in the medical literature. Due to space constraints, this paper has not included proposed modifications of EBM in the analysis unless they contradict what is contained in the two main sources.
A critical appraisal of evidence-based medicine: some ethical considerations
Version of Record online: 2 JUN 2003
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Special Issue: Evidence Based Medicine
Volume 9, Issue 2, pages 111–121, May 2003
How to Cite
Gupta, M. (2003), A critical appraisal of evidence-based medicine: some ethical considerations. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9: 111–121. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00382.x
2 The Users’ Guide to the Medical Literature, written by the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group and edited by Guyatt and Rennie, is also considered to be an authoritative account of EBM. There is some authorial overlap between the books and there is consistency in content. Sackett et al.'s basic definition of EBM was chosen as he is considered by many to have been the original and leading proponent of EBM in its current form.
3 The primacy of N-of-1 clinical trials assumes that there are pre-existing valid research studies that permit an intervention's use in practice.
4 There are new versions of the hierarchy being developed. See for example: http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/docs/levels.html.
5 If EBM cannot demonstrate its superiority empirically, then it should argue in favour of its use using philosophical arguments. That is, EBM should demonstrate why the particular empirical methods it espouses are the most likely basis for drawing truthful conclusions.
6 Numerous scholars have suggested the inclusion of other research methods into the evidence hierarchy, whether they are qualitative (Green & Britten 1998; Barbour 2000; Dixon-Woods et al. 2001; Upshur 2001) or conceptual (Berkwits 1998). The JAMA Users’ Guide does contain a chapter on critically appraising qualitative research, which suggests EBM's nascent openness to these concerns.
7 Positive results are results that show that there is a statistically significant difference in the effect of the study intervention as compared with the control intervention. Negative results are results that show that there is no such difference.
- Issue online: 2 JUN 2003
- Version of Record online: 2 JUN 2003
- Accepted for publication:7 June 2002
Options for accessing this content:
- If you are a society or association member and require assistance with obtaining online access instructions please contact our Journal Customer Services team.
- If your institution does not currently subscribe to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
- Login via other institutional login options http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-options.
- You can purchase online access to this Article for a 24-hour period (price varies by title)
- If you already have a Wiley Online Library or Wiley InterScience user account: login above and proceed to purchase the article.
- New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.
Login via OpenAthens
Search for your institution's name below to login via Shibboleth.
Registered Users please login:
- Access your saved publications, articles and searches
- Manage your email alerts, orders and subscriptions
- Change your contact information, including your password
Please register to:
- Save publications, articles and searches
- Get email alerts
- Get all the benefits mentioned below!