A writer at the Boston Globe is annoyed by the terms “evidence-based medicine” (and “reality-based community” and “fact-based presidency,” among others that he calls verbal tics).\u00a0 Surely these terms have become overused. But they have become overused because people want to base decisions in evidence.\u00a0 But the reporter scoffs at the BMJ (and the journal EBM) by quoting the long-accepted (since around 1992) definition of EBM and mocking it.<\/p>\n
About “evidence-based medicine” he asks, “As opposed to what?”, making the same mistake many learners make when they first hear about EBM. He believes the practice of medicine must all be evidence-based and is unaware that anything else could go on, or that it might be complicated to identify and apply evidence. Clearly EBM (the practice and the journal) is about using the best evidence.<\/p>\n
Anyway, the reporter’s piece and my response can be seen here…as per my tweet earlier today “EBM and BMJ taunted by Boston Globe writer http:\/\/t.co\/liNMZMx<\/a> last week. EBM responds…See it in the Globe today http:\/\/t.co\/Uo77Yss<\/a> ” and follow me @EvidBaseMed_BMJ<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A writer at the Boston Globe is annoyed by the terms “evidence-based medicine” (and “reality-based community” and “fact-based presidency,” among others that he calls verbal tics).\u00a0 Surely these terms have become overused. But they have become overused because people want to base decisions in evidence.\u00a0 But the reporter scoffs at the BMJ (and the journal […]<\/p>\n