Managing the State of the Art of Engineering: Learning from Medicine

  • Édison Renato SilvaEmail author
  • Roberto Bartholo
  • Domício ProençaJr
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 31)


This chapter briefly presents the management of the state of the art (sota) in Medicine as a possible learning opportunity for the future of Engineering. Engineering and Medicine are sibling disciplines for intervention in reality, “sciences of the artificial” according to Herbert A. Simon. They seek to enlarge and disseminate their state of the art (sota) for greater scope and effectiveness. Both seek to convert scientific knowledge or technological possibilities into answers and procedures in tune with practical needs. In different ways, each seeks to improve the quality of the data it considers and the rigor of the methods it employs. Medicine has arrived at one striking, unique arrangement to support individual practitioners: a system that collects, classifies and qualifies medical knowledge comprehensively, and culminates with access through Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO). PICO protocol allows a medical practitioner to access an up to date configuration of the whole of medical knowledge, being available as readily as in a smartphone. The chapter argues for the opportunity, propriety and desirability of translating the PICO experience to Engineering.


Engineering knowledge management Engineering heuristics Evidence-based medicine Evidence-based engineering Sciences of the artificial 


  1. Bigby, M. (2001). Challenges to the hierarchy of evidence. Does the emperor have no clothes? Archives of Dermatology, 137(3), 345–346.Google Scholar
  2. Bluhm, R. (2005). From hierarchy to network – A richer view of evidence for evidence-based medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(4), 535–547. Scholar
  3. Budgen, D., Kitchenham, B. A., Charters, S. M., Turner, M., Brereton, P., & Linkman, S. G. (2008). Presenting software engineering results using structured abstracts: A randomised experiment. Empirical Software Engineering, 13(4), 435–468. Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (2013). Medical philosophy: Conceptual issues in medicine. London: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgerson, K. (2009). Valuing evidence: Bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 218–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caelleigh, A. S. (2000). PubMed central and the new publishing landscape: Shifts and tradeoffs. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 75, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claridge, J. A., & Fabian, T. C. (2005). History and development of evidence-based medicine. World Journal of Surgery, 29(5), 547–553. Scholar
  8. Colditz, G. A. (2012). Dissemination and implementation research. In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, & E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Da Silva, F. Q. B., Santos, A. L. M., Soares, S., Franca, A. C. C., Monteiro, C. V. F., & Maciel, F. F. (2011). Six years of systematic literature reviews in software engineering: An updated tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 53(9, SI), 899–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Zone Books.Google Scholar
  11. Eccles, M., Clapp, Z., Grimshaw, J., Adams, P. C., Higgins, B., Purves, I., & Russel, I. (1996). North of England evidence based guidelines development project: Methods of guideline development. British Medical Journal, 312, 760–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, D. (2003). Hierarchy of evidence: A framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12, 77–84. Scholar
  13. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
  14. Freidson, E. (1988). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (Reprint edition). Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, D. (1999). PubMed central: A boon to information access, a bane to quality control, or neither? Gastroenterology, 117, 1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heneghan, C., & Badenoch, D. (2006). Evidence-based medicine toolkit. Malden/Oxford: BMJ Books/Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
  18. Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (ver. 5.1.0).
  19. Howick, J. (2011). The philosophy of evidence-based medicine. Chichester/West Sussex/Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, BMJ Books.Google Scholar
  20. Kitchenham, B. A. (2004). Procedures for undertaking systematic reviews. Joint Technical Report, Computer Science Department, 2004, Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd (0400011T1).Google Scholar
  21. Kitchenham, B. A., & Brereton, P. (2013). A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 55(12), 2049–2075. Scholar
  22. Kitchenham, B. A., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University.Google Scholar
  23. Kitchenham, B. A., Pfleeger, S. L., Pickard, L. M., Jones, P. W., Hoaglin, D. C., & El Emam, K. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions in Software Engineering, 28(8), 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitchenham, B. A., Brereton, O. P., Owen, S., Butcher, J., & Jefferies, C. (2008). Length and readability of structured software engineering abstracts. IET Software, 2(1), 37–45. Scholar
  25. Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Turner, M., & Niazi, M. (2010). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 52(8), 792–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., & Brereton, O. P. (2011). Using mapping studies as the basis for further research – A participant-observer case study. Information and Software Technology, 53(6, SI), 638–651. Scholar
  28. Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kurata, K., Morioka, T., Yokoi, K., & Matsubayashi, M. (2013). Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: Analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PLoS One, 8, e60925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindsey, W. T., & Olin, B. R. (2013). PubMed searches: Overview and strategies for clinicians. Nutrition in Clinical Practice: Official Publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 28, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipscomb, C. E. (2000). Medical subject headings (MeSH). Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88, 265–266.Google Scholar
  32. Mantzoukas, S. (2008). A review of evidence-based practice, nursing research and reflection: Levelling the hierarchy. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(2), 214–223. Scholar
  33. Marshall, C., Brereton, P., & Kitchenham, B. A. (2014). Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: A feature analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (p. 13). ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Marshall, C., Brereton, P., & Kitchenham, B. A. (2015). Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: A cross-domain survey using semi-structured interviews. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (p. 26). ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy (1st ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mittra, J., & Milne, C.-P. (2013). Introduction and definitions. In J. Mittra & C.-P. Milne (Eds.), Translational medicine: The future of therapy? Hoboken: Pan Stanford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Academies. (2016). Guidelines for the review of reports of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
  38. National Health and Medical Research Council (1999). A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines [Endorsed 16 November 1998]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  39. O’Leary, M. (1997). PubMed initiates new MEDLINE era. Database, 20, 70–72.Google Scholar
  40. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (2001). Levels of evidence. Accessed 14 Jan 2016.
  41. Petroski, H. (2011). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  42. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Richter, R. R., & Austin, T. M. (2012). Using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) to enhance PubMed search strategies for evidence-based practice in physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 92, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva, E. R., & Proença, D., Jr. (2015). Não ser não é não ter: Engenharia não é Ciência (nem mesmo ciência aplicada). In A. Proença et al. (Eds.), Gestão da Inovação e Competitividade no Brasil (pp. 197–218). Bookman: Porto Alegre.Google Scholar
  45. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2011). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach it. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  48. Sur, R. L., & Dahm, P. (2011). History of evidence-based medicine. Indian Journal of Urology: IJU: Journal of the Urological Society of India, 27(4), 487–489. Scholar
  49. Thornicroft, G., Lempp, H., & Tansella, M. (2011). The place of implementation science in the translational medicine continuum. Psychological Medicine, 41(10), 2015–2021. Scholar
  50. Van Aken, J. E., & Romme, G. (2012). A design science approach to evidence-based management. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 43–57). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Vincenti, W. G. (1993). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history (Revised ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Pr.Google Scholar
  52. Wehling, M. (2015). Introduction to translational medicine. In M. Wehling (Ed.), Principles of translational science in medicine, second edition: From bench to bedside. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, J. W. (1997). PubMed: A winner on the web for the National Library of Medicine. Online, 21, 60–61.Google Scholar
  54. Wyer, P. C., & Silva, S. A. (2009). Where is the wisdom? I – A conceptual history of evidence-based medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(6), 891–898. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Édison Renato Silva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roberto Bartholo
    • 1
  • Domício ProençaJr
    • 1
  1. 1.Management & Innovation Area, Production Engineering ProgramUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations