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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Unconventional medicine in the United States-Prevalence, costs, and patterns of use
Eisenberg, D. M., Kessler, R. C., Foster, C., Norlock, F. E., Calkins, D. R., & Delbanco, T. L. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199301283280406 · Cited by 4,177
Medical Heuristics: The Silent Adjudicators of Clinical Practice
McDonald, C. J. (1996) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_part_1-199601010-00009 · Cited by 207
Cited by
Evidence‐based Management: From Theory to Practice in Health Care
Walshe, K., & Rundall, T. G. (2001) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00214 · Cited by 532
von Thiele Schwarz, U., Aarons, G. A., & Hasson, H. (2019) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4668-y · Cited by 134
A critical appraisal of evidence‐based medicine: some ethical considerations
Gupta, M. (2003) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00382.x · Cited by 116
Examining the assumptions of evidence‐based medicine
Norman, G. R. (1999) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00197.x · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Tonelli, M. R.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.