The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence Based Medicine - New Approaches and Challenges
Open accessAbstract
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: NONE DECLARED Evidence based medicine (EBM) is the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. EBM integrates clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information. It is a movement which aims to increase the use of high quality clinical research in clinical decision making. EBM requires new skills of the clinician, including efficient literature-searching, and the application of formal rules of evidence in evaluating the clinical literature. The practice of evidence-based medicine is a process of lifelong, self-directed, problem-based learning in which caring for one's own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy and other clinical and health care issues. It is not "cookbook" with recipes, but its good application brings cost-effective and better health care. The key difference between evidence-based medicine and traditional medicine is not that EBM considers the evidence while the latter does not. Both take evidence into account; however, EBM demands better evidence than has traditionally been used. One of the greatest achievements of evidence-based medicine has been the development of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, methods by which researchers identify multiple studies on a topic, separate the best ones and then critically analyze them to come up with a summary of the best available evidence. The EBM-oriented clinicians of tomorrow have three tasks: a) to use evidence summaries in clinical practice; b) to help develop and update selected systematic reviews or evidence-based guidelines in their area of expertise; and c) to enrol patients in studies of treatment, diagnosis and prognosis on which medical practice is based.
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
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Cited by
(2020) · doi:10.4178/epih.e2020038 · Cited by 741
Cohen, S. P., Bhaskar, A., Bhatia, A., Buvanendran, A., Deer, T., Garg, S., Hooten, W. M., Hurley, R. W., Kennedy, D. J., McLean, B. C., et al. (2020) · Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · doi:10.1136/rapm-2019-101243 · Cited by 371
Tan, Y. Y., Papez, V., Chang, W. H., Mueller, S. H., Denaxas, S., & Lai, A. G. (2022) · The Lancet Healthy Longevity · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00186-6 · Cited by 283
Guidelines and evaluation of clinical explainable AI in medical image analysis
Jin, W., Li, X., Fatehi, M., & Hamarneh, G. (2023) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102684 · Cited by 199
Pretraining to Recognize PICO Elements from Randomized Controlled Trial Literature.
Tian, K., Shirui, Z., & Chunhua, W. (2019) · Studies in Health Technology and Informatics · doi:10.3233/shti190209 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Masic, I., Miokovic, M., & Muhamedagic, B.
- Venue
- Acta Informatica Medica
- Publisher
- ScopeMed
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 219
- ISSN
- 0353-8109 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2153244834
- Cited by
- 495
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evidence Based Medicine - New Approaches and Challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5455/aim.2008.16.219-225
- The paper
- Masic, I., Miokovic, M., & Muhamedagic, B. (2008). Evidence Based Medicine - New Approaches and Challenges. Acta Informatica Medica. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2008.16.219-225
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.