Science and proven experience: a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper, not in proceeding

Standard

Science and proven experience : a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine? / Persson, Johannes; Vareman, Niklas; Wallin, Annika; Wahlberg, Lena; Sahlin, Nils-Eric.

2016. Paper presented at PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Atlanta, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper, not in proceeding

Harvard

Persson, J, Vareman, N, Wallin, A, Wahlberg, L & Sahlin, N-E 2016, 'Science and proven experience: a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?', Paper presented at PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Atlanta, United States, 2016/11/03 - 2016/11/05.

APA

Persson, J., Vareman, N., Wallin, A., Wahlberg, L., & Sahlin, N-E. (2016). Science and proven experience: a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?. Paper presented at PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Atlanta, United States.

CBE

Persson J, Vareman N, Wallin A, Wahlberg L, Sahlin N-E. 2016. Science and proven experience: a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?. Paper presented at PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Atlanta, United States.

MLA

Persson, Johannes et al. Science and proven experience: a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?. PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 03 Nov 2016, Atlanta, United States, Paper, not in proceeding, 2016.

Vancouver

Persson J, Vareman N, Wallin A, Wahlberg L, Sahlin N-E. Science and proven experience: a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?. 2016. Paper presented at PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Atlanta, United States.

Author

Persson, Johannes ; Vareman, Niklas ; Wallin, Annika ; Wahlberg, Lena ; Sahlin, Nils-Eric. / Science and proven experience : a Swedish variety of evidence-based medicine?. Paper presented at PSA 2016: The 25th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Atlanta, United States.

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - Science and proven experience

AU - Persson, Johannes

AU - Vareman, Niklas

AU - Wallin, Annika

AU - Wahlberg, Lena

AU - Sahlin, Nils-Eric

PY - 2016/11/3

Y1 - 2016/11/3

N2 - A key question for evidence-based medicine (EBM) is how best to model the way in which EBM should “[integrate] individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence” (Sackett et al. 1996). We argue that the formulations and models available in the literature today are modest variations on a common theme and face very similar problems. For example, both the early and updated models of evidence-based clinical decisions presented in Haynes, Devereaux and Guyatt (2002) assume (with Sackett, et. al., 1996) that EBM consists of, among other things, evidence from clinical research and clinical expertise. On this A-view, EBM describes all that goes on in a specific justifiable medical decision. There is, however, an alternative interpretation of EBM, the B-view, in which EBM describes just one component of the decision situation (a component usually based on evidence from clinical research) and in which, together with other types of evidence, EBM leads to a justifiable clincial decision but does not describe the decision itself. This B-view is inspired by a 100-years older version of EBM, a Swedish standard requiring medical decision-making and practice to be in accordance with ‘science and proven experience’. In the paper we outline how the Swedish concept leads to an improved understanding of the way in which scientific evidence and clinical experience can and cannot be integrated in light of EBM. In addition the paper sketches the as yet unexplored historical background to EBM.

AB - A key question for evidence-based medicine (EBM) is how best to model the way in which EBM should “[integrate] individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence” (Sackett et al. 1996). We argue that the formulations and models available in the literature today are modest variations on a common theme and face very similar problems. For example, both the early and updated models of evidence-based clinical decisions presented in Haynes, Devereaux and Guyatt (2002) assume (with Sackett, et. al., 1996) that EBM consists of, among other things, evidence from clinical research and clinical expertise. On this A-view, EBM describes all that goes on in a specific justifiable medical decision. There is, however, an alternative interpretation of EBM, the B-view, in which EBM describes just one component of the decision situation (a component usually based on evidence from clinical research) and in which, together with other types of evidence, EBM leads to a justifiable clincial decision but does not describe the decision itself. This B-view is inspired by a 100-years older version of EBM, a Swedish standard requiring medical decision-making and practice to be in accordance with ‘science and proven experience’. In the paper we outline how the Swedish concept leads to an improved understanding of the way in which scientific evidence and clinical experience can and cannot be integrated in light of EBM. In addition the paper sketches the as yet unexplored historical background to EBM.

KW - Evidence-Based Medicine

KW - proven experience

KW - history of medicine

KW - philosophy of science

KW - philosophy of medicine

M3 - Paper, not in proceeding

Y2 - 3 November 2016 through 5 November 2016

ER -