The role of basic science in evidence-based medicine
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.
KeywordsEvidence-based medicine Epidemiology Basic medical science Clinical decisions Randomised controlled trials
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.
- Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge Univeristy Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Cox DR (2006) Principles of statistical inference. Cambridge Univeristy Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Guyatt GH, Rennie D (eds) (2002) Users’ guide to the medical literature: Essentials of evidence-based clinical practice. American Medical Association Press, ChigacoGoogle Scholar
- Mayo DG (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Science and its conceptual foundations. University of Chicago Press, ChigacoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Salmon WC (1971) Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach, 3rd edn. Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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