In the teeth of the evidence: the curious case of evidence-based medicine

For a very long time, evidence from research has contributed to clinical decision making. Over the past 50 years, however, the nature of clinical research evidence has drastically changed compared with previous eras: its standards are higher, the tools for assembling and analyzing it are more powerful, and the context in which it is used is less authoritarian. The consequence has been a shift in both the concept and the practice of clinical decision making known as evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based decisions, by definition, use the strongest available evidence, are often more quantitatively informed than decisions made in the traditional fashion; and sometimes run counter to expert opinion. The techniques of evidence-based medicine are also helpful in resolving conflicting opinions. Evidence-based medicine did not simply appear in vacuo; its roots extend back at least as far as the great French Encyclopedia of the 18th century, and the subsequent work of Pierre Louis in Paris in the early 19th century. The power of the evidence-based approach has been enhanced in recent years by the development of the techniques of systematic review and meta-analysis. While this approach has its critics, we would all want the best available evidence used in making decisions about our care if we got sick. It is only fair that the patients under our care receive nothing less.