 |
 |

Scientific Evidence and Medical PracticeThe "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
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati 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
|