Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine

Tonelli, M R·1998·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has already had a profound effect on both medical education and clinical practice. The benefits of EBM, which defines the value of medical interventions in terms of empirical evidence from clinical trials, are enormous and well described. Not clearly acknowledged, however, are the limits of EBM. An intrinsic gap exists between clinical research and clinical practice. Failure to recognize and account for this gap may lead to unintended and untoward consequences. Under the current understanding of EBM, the individuality of patients tends to be devalued, the focus of clinical practice is subtly shifted away from the care of individuals toward the care of populations, and the complex nature of sound clinical judgment is not fully appreciated. Despite its promise, EBM currently fails to provide an adequate account of optimal medical practice. A broader understanding of medical knowledge and reasoning is necessary.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-199812000-00011

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
Tonelli, M. R.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
1998-12
Volume
73
Issue
12
Pages
1234-40
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985802923
Cited by
389
References
2
FWCI
30.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00001888-199812000-00011
The paper
Tonelli, M. R. (1998). The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199812000-00011

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.