You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 169 No. 7, April 13, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 •Quality of Care
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Scientific Evidence and Medical Practice

The "Drunkard's Walk"

Wayne B. Jonas, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(7):649-650.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In his recent book "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives,"1 Leonard Mlodinow describes how humans are notoriously bad at, and often even averse to, the straightforward use of data and probability in making daily judgments. This characteristic is not restricted to certain educational levels, sexes, or professions. Despite its image of being scientifically based, the actual application of evidence in medicine is, like a drunkard's walk, quite haphazard and inconsistent. Social scientists have long documented that new medical products and practices disseminate into health care more because of power and money than scientific evidence.2 In more than 3 decades since the formal development and teaching of "evidence-based medicine" (EBM), the amount of evidence routinely incorporated into various practice types (complementary or conventional) and settings varies wildly. In 1991, it was estimated that approximately 15% of medical interventions were supported by solid scientific . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Alternative Medicine Research in Clinical Practice: A US National Survey
Jon C. Tilburt, Farr A. Curlin, Ted J. Kaptchuk, Brian Clarridge, Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, and Franklin G. Miller
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(7):670-677.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.