{"title":"基于证据b (i)的医学:局限性和非迷信的替代品","authors":"Green, S. Joshua","doi":"10.29046/JJP.021.1.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introductory Remarks The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement crystallized in the early 1990’s at McMaster University in Canada (3). The movement originally challenged practitioners to validate their treatments based on reasoning and clinical studies rather than personal authority (9). In this essay, I will argue that, contrary to this wholesome intention, EBM is authoritarian in spirit and actually constricts discourse about how to make clinical decisions.","PeriodicalId":14750,"journal":{"name":"Japanese journal of pharmacology","volume":"51 6 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-B(i)ased Medicine: Limitations and Non-Superstition-Based Alternatives\",\"authors\":\"Green, S. Joshua\",\"doi\":\"10.29046/JJP.021.1.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introductory Remarks The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement crystallized in the early 1990’s at McMaster University in Canada (3). The movement originally challenged practitioners to validate their treatments based on reasoning and clinical studies rather than personal authority (9). In this essay, I will argue that, contrary to this wholesome intention, EBM is authoritarian in spirit and actually constricts discourse about how to make clinical decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese journal of pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"51 6 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese journal of pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29046/JJP.021.1.006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese journal of pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29046/JJP.021.1.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evidence-B(i)ased Medicine: Limitations and Non-Superstition-Based Alternatives
Introductory Remarks The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement crystallized in the early 1990’s at McMaster University in Canada (3). The movement originally challenged practitioners to validate their treatments based on reasoning and clinical studies rather than personal authority (9). In this essay, I will argue that, contrary to this wholesome intention, EBM is authoritarian in spirit and actually constricts discourse about how to make clinical decisions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
