HOME > Criticism of EBM

Criticism of EBM

EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) is not the proper method to evaluate a natural phenomenon absolutely.

Recently, the techniques of EBM have frequently been used to evaluate the effectiveness of medical technology or medicine.


"Evidence quality can range from meta-analyses and systematic reviews of double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials at the top end, down to conventional wisdom at the bottom."

The top three forms of evidence are

Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.

The generally accepted theory is that if medicine doesn't enter the body, it will have no effect. However, I have noticed that even when substances including medicine do not enter the body can have a noticeable effect. In some cases just bring the substance close to the body can have an effect. If this is true, the effectiveness of EBM for estimating the therapeutic value of medicines may be called into question. For example, some members of the control group might have medicine in their pockets, which could have effect on their bodies. In another case, the placebo used by the control group may have unnoticed effects on the body. If this is the case, the results of past randomized controlled trials, cohort or case-control may be inaccurate. We should look for an evaluation method that is more accurate than EBM. I propose that a third group be introduced into trials. This group would include subjects who were exposed to, but who do not ingest the medicine being tested. This would eliminate the inaccuracies that are present in current testing methods.

Criticism of EBM (Evidence Based Medicine)