In his recent book “The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives,”1 Leonard Mlodinow describes how humans are notoriously bad at, and often even averse to, the straightforward use of data and probability in making daily judgments. This characteristic is not restricted to certain educational levels, sexes, or professions. Despite its image of being scientifically based, the actual application of evidence in medicine is, like a drunkard's walk, quite haphazard and inconsistent. Social scientists have long documented that new medical products and practices disseminate into health care more because of power and money than scientific evidence.2 In more than 3 decades since the formal development and teaching of “evidence-based medicine” (EBM), the amount of evidence routinely incorporated into various practice types (complementary or conventional) and settings varies wildly. In 1991, it was estimated that approximately 15% of medical interventions were supported by solid scientific evidence.3 A more recent summary of the percentage of decisions in various medical specialties that follow the rules of EBM ranges from 11% to 70%4; These are hardly ringing endorsements of medicine as science. Subspecialists and inpatient practices tend to be better grounded in evidence, possibly because they have a more narrow focus and the nature of the “best” evidence comes from patients with more homogeneous problems entered into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) rather than the more complex patients seen in general practice.5
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Chapter 2. The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Chapter 22.6. Parallel but Separate Goals: Evidence-Based Practitioners and Evidence-Based Care
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.