循证医学和机械证据:依非韦伦在津巴布韦推广失败的案例。

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-06-20 DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhad019
Andrew Park, Daniel Steel, Elicia Maine
{"title":"循证医学和机械证据:依非韦伦在津巴布韦推广失败的案例。","authors":"Andrew Park,&nbsp;Daniel Steel,&nbsp;Elicia Maine","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has long deemphasized mechanistic reasoning and pathophysiological rationale in assessing the effectiveness of interventions. The EBM+ movement has challenged this stance, arguing that evidence of mechanisms and comparative studies should both be seen as necessary and complementary. Advocates of EBM+ provide a combination of theoretical arguments and examples of mechanistic reasoning in medical research. However, EBM+ proponents have not provided recent examples of how downplaying mechanistic reasoning resulted in worse medical results than would have occurred otherwise. Such examples are necessary to make the case that EBM+ responds to a problem in clinical practice that urgently demands a solution. In light of this, we examine the failed rollout of efavirenz as a first-line HIV treatment in Zimbabwe as evidence of the importance of mechanistic reasoning in improving clinical practice and public health policy decisions. We suggest that this case is analogous to examples commonly given to support EBM.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cb/9d/jhad019.PMC10281362.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based Medicine and Mechanistic Evidence: The Case of the Failed Rollout of Efavirenz in Zimbabwe.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Park,&nbsp;Daniel Steel,&nbsp;Elicia Maine\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jmp/jhad019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has long deemphasized mechanistic reasoning and pathophysiological rationale in assessing the effectiveness of interventions. The EBM+ movement has challenged this stance, arguing that evidence of mechanisms and comparative studies should both be seen as necessary and complementary. Advocates of EBM+ provide a combination of theoretical arguments and examples of mechanistic reasoning in medical research. However, EBM+ proponents have not provided recent examples of how downplaying mechanistic reasoning resulted in worse medical results than would have occurred otherwise. Such examples are necessary to make the case that EBM+ responds to a problem in clinical practice that urgently demands a solution. In light of this, we examine the failed rollout of efavirenz as a first-line HIV treatment in Zimbabwe as evidence of the importance of mechanistic reasoning in improving clinical practice and public health policy decisions. We suggest that this case is analogous to examples commonly given to support EBM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cb/9d/jhad019.PMC10281362.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad019\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

循证医学(EBM)长期以来在评估干预措施的有效性时不强调机械推理和病理生理原理。EBM+运动挑战了这一立场,认为机制证据和比较研究应被视为必要和互补。EBM+的支持者提供了医学研究中理论论证和机械推理实例的结合。然而,实证医学+的支持者并没有提供最近的例子来说明低估机械推理是如何导致更糟糕的医疗结果的。这些例子是必要的,以证明EBM+回应了临床实践中迫切需要解决的问题。鉴于此,我们研究了伊非韦伦作为一线艾滋病毒治疗在津巴布韦的失败推广,作为机械推理在改善临床实践和公共卫生政策决策中的重要性的证据。我们认为这个案例类似于通常给出的支持循证医学的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence-based Medicine and Mechanistic Evidence: The Case of the Failed Rollout of Efavirenz in Zimbabwe.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has long deemphasized mechanistic reasoning and pathophysiological rationale in assessing the effectiveness of interventions. The EBM+ movement has challenged this stance, arguing that evidence of mechanisms and comparative studies should both be seen as necessary and complementary. Advocates of EBM+ provide a combination of theoretical arguments and examples of mechanistic reasoning in medical research. However, EBM+ proponents have not provided recent examples of how downplaying mechanistic reasoning resulted in worse medical results than would have occurred otherwise. Such examples are necessary to make the case that EBM+ responds to a problem in clinical practice that urgently demands a solution. In light of this, we examine the failed rollout of efavirenz as a first-line HIV treatment in Zimbabwe as evidence of the importance of mechanistic reasoning in improving clinical practice and public health policy decisions. We suggest that this case is analogous to examples commonly given to support EBM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
期刊最新文献
A Defense of the Obligation to Keep Promises to the Dead. Why Moral Bioenhancement Cannot Reliably Produce Virtue. Impairment Arguments, Interests, and Circularity. Disability and Achievement: A Reply to Campbell, Nyholm, and Walter. Organ Donation by the Imminently Dead: Addressing the Organ Shortage and the Dead Donor Rule.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1