Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 81–98 | Cite as

The role of basic science in evidence-based medicine

  • Adam La Caze
Article

Abstract

Proponents of Evidence-based medicine (EBM) do not provide a clear role for basic science in therapeutic decision making. Of what they do say about basic science, most of it is negative. Basic science resides on the lower tiers of EBM’s hierarchy of evidence. Therapeutic decisions, according to proponents of EBM, should be informed by evidence from randomised studies (and systematic reviews of randomised studies) rather than basic science. A framework of models explicates the links between the mechanisms of basic science, experimental inquiry, and observed data. Relying on the framework of models I show that basic science often plays a role not only in specifying experiments, but also analysing and interpreting the data that is provided. Further, and contradicting what is implied in EBM’s hierarchy of evidence, appeals to basic science are often required to apply clinical research to therapeutic questions.

Keywords

Evidence-based medicine Epidemiology Basic medical science Clinical decisions Randomised controlled trials 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mark Colyvan, Jason Grossman, Neil Thomason, Jeremy Howick, Lindley Darden and Carl Craver for helpful discussions on previous versions of this paper.

References

  1. Altman DG (1998) Within trial variation—a false trail? J Clin Epidemiol 51(4):301–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge Univeristy Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, Bolognese JA, Oxenius B, Horgan K, Lines C, Riddell R, Morton D, Lanas A, Konstam MA, Baron JA (2005) Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal andenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 352(11):1092–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookes S, Whitely E, Peters T, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G (2001) Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess 5(33):1–58Google Scholar
  5. Cox DR (2006) Principles of statistical inference. Cambridge Univeristy Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Devereaux PJ, Yusuf S (2003) The evolution of the randomized controlled trial and its role in evidence-based decision making. J Intern Med 254:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Echt D, Liebson P, Mitchell L, Peters R, Obias-Manno D, Barker A, Arensberg D, Baker A, Friedman L, Greene H et al (1991) Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. Fhe cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial. N Engl J Med 324(12):781–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268(17):2420–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feinstein A (1996) Two centuries of conflict-collaboration between medicine and mathematics. J Clin Epidemiol 49(12):1339–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feinstein AR (1998) The problem of cogent subgroups: a clinicostatistical tragedy. J Clin Epidemiol 51(4):297–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glennan S (1996) Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44(1):49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guyatt GH, Rennie D (eds) (2002) Users’ guide to the medical literature: Essentials of evidence-based clinical practice. American Medical Association Press, ChigacoGoogle Scholar
  13. ISIS-2 Collaborative Group (1988) Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17 187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: Isis-2. The Lancet 332(8607):349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. La Caze A (2008) Evidence-based medicine can’t be .... Soc Epistemol 22(4):353–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. La Caze A (2009) Evidence-based medicine must be .... J Med Philos 34:509–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lagakos SW (2006) Time-to-event analyses for long-term treatments—the APPROVe trial. N Engl J Med 355(2):113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver C (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philoso Sci 67(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayo DG (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Science and its conceptual foundations. University of Chicago Press, ChigacoGoogle Scholar
  19. Nissen SE, Furberg CD, Bresalier RS, Baron JA (2006) Adverse cardiovascular effects of rofecoxib. N Engl J Med 355(2):203–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peto R, Collins R, Gray R (1995) Large-scale randomized evidence: Large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol 48(1):23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett DL, Badenoch D, Straus SE, Haynes RB, Dawes M (1998) Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence (May 2001). Tech. rep., http://www.cebm.net/?o=1023
  22. Poisson SD, Dulong PL, Larrey DJ, Double FJ (2001) Statistical research on conditions caused by calculi by Doctor Civiale. Int J Epidemiol 30(6):1246–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reilly B (2004) The essence of EBM. Br Med J 329:991–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sackett DL (2006) The principles behind the tactics of performing therapeutic trials. In: Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P (eds) Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 173–243Google Scholar
  25. Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Gray JAM, Haynes B, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what is it and what it isn’t. Br Med J 312(7023):71–72Google Scholar
  26. Salmon WC (1971) Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) Consort 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152(11):1–7Google Scholar
  28. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach, 3rd edn. Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Suppes P (1962) Models of data. In: Nagel E, Suppes P, Tarski A (eds) Logic, Methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 252–261Google Scholar
  30. Women’s Health Initiative Writing Group (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in health postmenopausal women. JAMA 288:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations