5 ms·

First, the concept of "Western Medicine" is a misleading one. It implies there it is the opposite of "Eastern Medicine". Evidence Based Medicine, the subject

by mchusma 13y ago

First, the concept of "Western Medicine" is a misleading one. It implies there it is the opposite of "Eastern Medicine". Evidence Based Medicine, the subject of this post, is a much better term. Any methodology is appropriate, so long is it is backed by science. I think Evidence Based Medicine puts personal responsibility on the individual. Individuals need to realize that Marketing does not Equal better care, all that matters is the science. Evidence Based Medicine has nothing to do with personalized medicine, it is simply a way of analyzing the efficacy of medicine...science.

Crito 13y ago
The "Eastern"/"Western" dichotomy also ignores the existence of many scientifically questionable/discredited practices that originated "in the West". Homeopathy and chiropractic are both examples of prominent "alternative medicine" from 'the West'. Similarly, plenty of medical techniques developed in 'the East' are backed by evidence.
Alex3917 13y ago
Western medicine or, more accurately, allopathic medicine, is actually a much better term than Evidence Based Medicine because most of medicine is not especially evidence based. There are countless studies and books on this topic.
- vacri 13y ago
  because most of medicine is not especially evidence based This is nonsense. Most of medicine is evidence based. Most of what a surgeon does, for example, is being a glorified handyman - staple this bit to that, remove and replace this other bit, all of which has had ample opportunities for study and observation. Or riffling through a MIMS for pharmaceutical information, the bulk of which is backed by drug trials. Cut your finger? Apply some antiseptic perhaps, and cover with a band-aid, both items that have had plenty of testing. Some parts of modern medicine may have fallen through the gaps, but it's absolute nonsense that 'most' has. The bulk of medicine is boring stuff that no-one ever thinks about. Where modern medicine is weak is in preventative medicine.
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    "A simple average of the findings of the preventive care studies shows that about 50 percent of people received recommended care. (None of the studies reported a percentage of people receiving contraindicated preventive care.) An average of 70 percent of patients received recommended acute care, and 30 percent received contraindicated acute care. For chronic conditions, 60 percent received recommended care and 20 percent received contraindicated care. These values do not indicate exact levels of quality in the United States, but they do provide a quantitative sense of how much could be done in all areas to identify and eliminate overuse and underuse of care." Source: http://www.innovationlabs.com/summit/summit3/readings/Schuster-McGlynn-Brook_How%20Good%20is%20the%20Quality%20of%20HC_Millbank_2005.pdf http://www.innovationlabs.com/summit/summit3/readings/Schust... In other words, the percentage of the U.S. population who receives medical treatment based on best practices isn't even close to 50%. And more often than not even doctors who follow clinical guidelines aren't actually following best practices, because most clinical guidelines aren't even correct: "A study published in JAMA in 1999 evaluating the quality of [clinical] guidelines showed, ironically, that they often fall short of established standards. The following year The Lancet published a report that found that only one of the 20 clinical guidelines examined met established standards of quality for three simple criteria: description of the professionals involved in formulating the guidelines; description of the sources of information used to find the relevant scientific evidence; and grading of the evidence used to support the main recommendations. In 2000, Canadian researchers from the British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment evaluated the quality of the guidelines that addressed the testing of cholesterol levels. They found that four out of five of these guidelines did not reflect the best scientific evidence available. The Canadian Researchers also found that 'the greater involvement of clinical experts in the development process of the clinical practice guidelines, the less of recommendations reflected the research evidence.'" Source: Overdosed America, p. 127
    - vacri 13y ago
      How does 'simple average of 50%', 'average of 70% receiving recommended acute care' and '60% received recommended chronic care' somehow mean 'not even close to 50%'? They're all 50% or higher. Also, there is a difference between 'not the best standards' and 'not evidence-based medicine'. What might have been the best standard when the doctor trained in 1980, gained from evidence, might have developed further. The doctor is still performing due to their evidence-based training; it's just not current best practises.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Evidence-based medicine" is an ideal term for what we seek. Both our existing "mainstream" medical infrastructure and presently alternative therapies should be judged by how well they approximate this. Not all evidence is large, controlled studies - but they do constitute a particularly strong form of evidence.

by mchusma 13y ago

Crito 13y ago

The "Eastern"/"Western" dichotomy also ignores the existence of many scientifically questionable/discredited practices that originated "in the West". Homeopathy and chiropractic are both examples of prominent "alternative medicine" from 'the West'. Similarly, plenty of medical techniques developed in 'the East' are backed by evidence.

Alex3917 13y ago

Western medicine or, more accurately, allopathic medicine, is actually a much better term than Evidence Based Medicine because most of medicine is not especially evidence based. There are countless studies and books on this topic.

vacri 13y ago
because most of medicine is not especially evidence based This is nonsense. Most of medicine is evidence based. Most of what a surgeon does, for example, is being a glorified handyman - staple this bit to that, remove and replace this other bit, all of which has had ample opportunities for study and observation. Or riffling through a MIMS for pharmaceutical information, the bulk of which is backed by drug trials. Cut your finger? Apply some antiseptic perhaps, and cover with a band-aid, both items that have had plenty of testing. Some parts of modern medicine may have fallen through the gaps, but it's absolute nonsense that 'most' has. The bulk of medicine is boring stuff that no-one ever thinks about. Where modern medicine is weak is in preventative medicine.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  "A simple average of the findings of the preventive care studies shows that about 50 percent of people received recommended care. (None of the studies reported a percentage of people receiving contraindicated preventive care.) An average of 70 percent of patients received recommended acute care, and 30 percent received contraindicated acute care. For chronic conditions, 60 percent received recommended care and 20 percent received contraindicated care. These values do not indicate exact levels of quality in the United States, but they do provide a quantitative sense of how much could be done in all areas to identify and eliminate overuse and underuse of care." Source: http://www.innovationlabs.com/summit/summit3/readings/Schuster-McGlynn-Brook_How%20Good%20is%20the%20Quality%20of%20HC_Millbank_2005.pdf http://www.innovationlabs.com/summit/summit3/readings/Schust... In other words, the percentage of the U.S. population who receives medical treatment based on best practices isn't even close to 50%. And more often than not even doctors who follow clinical guidelines aren't actually following best practices, because most clinical guidelines aren't even correct: "A study published in JAMA in 1999 evaluating the quality of [clinical] guidelines showed, ironically, that they often fall short of established standards. The following year The Lancet published a report that found that only one of the 20 clinical guidelines examined met established standards of quality for three simple criteria: description of the professionals involved in formulating the guidelines; description of the sources of information used to find the relevant scientific evidence; and grading of the evidence used to support the main recommendations. In 2000, Canadian researchers from the British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment evaluated the quality of the guidelines that addressed the testing of cholesterol levels. They found that four out of five of these guidelines did not reflect the best scientific evidence available. The Canadian Researchers also found that 'the greater involvement of clinical experts in the development process of the clinical practice guidelines, the less of recommendations reflected the research evidence.'" Source: Overdosed America, p. 127
  - vacri 13y ago
    How does 'simple average of 50%', 'average of 70% receiving recommended acute care' and '60% received recommended chronic care' somehow mean 'not even close to 50%'? They're all 50% or higher. Also, there is a difference between 'not the best standards' and 'not evidence-based medicine'. What might have been the best standard when the doctor trained in 1980, gained from evidence, might have developed further. The doctor is still performing due to their evidence-based training; it's just not current best practises.
dllthomas 13y ago
"Evidence-based medicine" is an ideal term for what we seek. Both our existing "mainstream" medical infrastructure and presently alternative therapies should be judged by how well they approximate this. Not all evidence is large, controlled studies - but they do constitute a particularly strong form of evidence.