Great piece by @SmithMarkets & @FayCortez. Go read.
It details the re-emergence of iterative results-based medicine — as opposed to so-called evidence-based medicine.
The latter has its place, but the cost of formality & delay is too high in a pandemic.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
It details the re-emergence of iterative results-based medicine — as opposed to so-called evidence-based medicine.
The latter has its place, but the cost of formality & delay is too high in a pandemic.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
The concept of evidence-based medicine is that the only legitimate way to make treatment decisions is via peer reviewed studies, meta-analyses, and RCTs.
Otherwise the idea is that you’re basing medical judgments not on rigorous evidence but on hearsay.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-…
Otherwise the idea is that you’re basing medical judgments not on rigorous evidence but on hearsay.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-…
There is merit to EBM. I’m not rejecting it completely.
But taken too far, the EBM paradigm excludes any kind of fast, informal, iterative process in medicine. Yet speed of iteration (with patient consent/participation!) may produce better results than waiting for formal study.
But taken too far, the EBM paradigm excludes any kind of fast, informal, iterative process in medicine. Yet speed of iteration (with patient consent/participation!) may produce better results than waiting for formal study.
Taken to the *very* extreme, evidence based medicine strips agency from individual MDs and make medicine fragile in its reliance on studies approved by centralized authorities.
That’s where we were. Then CDC failed. Now MDs are organizing a decentralized, iterative response.
That’s where we were. Then CDC failed. Now MDs are organizing a decentralized, iterative response.
Put another way, studies are good in the abstract, but formality and overhead are a huge tax on speed, which is undervalued in medicine — except during a pandemic.
