["What's up, doc?" The context, limitations, and issues for clinicians in evidence-based medicine]

The evidence-based medicine approach could be considered a new name given to the contemporary medicine dialectics between the practice of an art and the insight provided by the best scientific data.

In this 3-part article, the background is introduced, then the design limits of the approach are shown through an example of metaanalysis applied to 4 psychiatric situations, and the conclusion is left to a clinician.

In the background, evidence-based medicine is first associated with the period of budget cuts, then with the widespread popularity of the Internet. A few snags in this seemingly flawless system are seen when the subjective items involved in metaanalysis are taken into account. There are also problems linked to unpublished data, homogenization of populations studied, and the assumption that only random studies lead to valid scientific knowledge. The clinician will probably not be surprised and will link this to the old debate between empiricists and rationalists.

In its purest form, evidence-based medicine supports the necessary continuous inquiry about our practices.