Benjamin Djulbegovic posted:
> I am afraid he is right- EBM has been hijacked...
> ...but if I ask you how will you differentiate the answer to the
> question by the EBM "purists" vs. those who knowingly or unknowingly
> distort evidence but using EBM language, what would be a difference in
> technical, practical terms? Perhaps, follow-up question to this long
> comment is " Is EBM a field of science or not?" (I noticed that Paul
> Glasziou announced in some of his earlier e-mail messages PhD program at
> his center. This means that at least some people think that EBM is
> science).
This sounds very familiar to the question of whether epidemiology is a science (with the central hypothesis that disease is not distributed randomly) or just a discipline. As an epidemiologist who teaches evidence-based practice, I prefer to think that it is an approach, a discipline, rather than a branch of science per se.
--
David Birnbaum, PhD, MPH
Visiting Associate Professor
School of Nursing
University of British Columbia
Principal, Applied Epidemiology
British Columbia, Canada
|