Responses

Download PDFPDF

Adapt or die: how the pandemic made the shift from EBM to EBM+ more urgent
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    EBM+ or a Trojan horse of 'science-experts'
    • Mark Murphy, GP Eldon Family Practice, Dublin 8, Ireland

    The clinical evidence we produce which impacts the care we deliver to patients must have the highest standards. Unlike biomedical evidence, the evidence behind our treatments, risk factors and diagnostic tests should be relevant to the patients and clinicians who practice at the coal-face and real-world of General Practice and our hospitals.
    We may have had 250,000 'peer-reviewed' articles relating to COVID-19 (whatever credibility that affords), but allowing biomedical assumptions to creep into guidelines and direct patient care, is taking a step backwards in evidence-based practice. COVID saw a multitude of 'experts' give their opinion freely in the media and on social media platforms, based on biomedical ‘evidence’, on opinion, through the platforming of academic-status and on dubious case-studies. This was self-evidently un-scientific, and arguably has set science back. Yet this article seems to advance the notion that this evidence should impact patient care.
    So much has to be done to enable EBM to flourish- yet this article will likely set EBM back. The evidence underpinning our treatments should be quantifiable in absolute terms, and the uncertainties and conflicts of interests (COIs) acknowledged. The evidence behind our risk factors characterised in absolute terms, within the context of confounders and biases from observational studies. Our diagnostic tests should be understood within the context of odds and post-test probability. O...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    EBM orthodoxy has had a quasi-religious feel to it.
    • Jan K Melichar, Addiction Psychiatrist & Pragmatic Academic Clinician University Hospital Wales, Cardiff

    This refreshing article does much to help move forward from the self-imposed strictures of the EBM orthodoxy. I hope EBM+ grows as an idea as, currently, EBM feels, sometimes, quasi-religious in the fervour to reject “the wrong sort” of evidence. It leaves clinicians in fields like addiction - where RCTs are very difficult to do unless so simple in their structure that the results are clinically difficult to use or, worse, irrelevant - stuck. Meta-analyses of clinically irrelevant studies are still clinically irrelevant. Data is hard to come by that is not EBM-perfect, so why bother doing the clinical research? Hopefully this suggestion will improve that disconnect.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.