↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based medicine: what it can and cannot do.

Overview of attention for article published in Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evidence-based medicine: what it can and cannot do.
Published in
Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, January 2011
DOI 10.4415/ann_11_01_06
Pubmed ID
Authors

Goffredo Freddi, José Luis Romàn-Pumar

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not a old hat, a "cookbook" medicine perpetrated by arrogant to serve cost cutters to suppress clinical freedom, a mandatory, deterministic, totalitarian practice of medicine, a way to control cost and to ignore patient preferences, a limit to personal/ humanistic/individual medicine. EBM is a reference of excellence to guide clinical decisions, the integration of own expertise with others' expertise and patient preferences, a way to improve medical practice and limit the variability and errors created when there is not evidence to identify the gold standard and differentiate among alternatives available. But evidences need to be integrated with a new thinking based on Complexity Science. Health care systems operates as complex adaptative systems rather than rigid, linear or mechanical organizations and innovation is a critical outcome of Complexity Science. How does EBM impact drug innovation? New drug approvals are not keeping pace with rising Research and Development spending, clinical approval success rate for new chemical entities (NCEs) is progressively dropping and maybe, through these indicators, we are seeing the worst face of EBM: its limiting, blocking, and controlling side. If that is the case, EBM is the main ally to keep the economy of health systems under control and the great excuse to block the access of the innovation to patients. Certainly not the best way to maximize the benefits of EBM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 8%
Colombia 1 8%
Netherlands 1 8%
Belgium 1 8%
Unknown 9 69%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 92%
Student > Bachelor 11 85%
Student > Postgraduate 8 62%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 54%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 38%
Other 16 123%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 246%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 23%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Other 10 77%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2023.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#125
of 279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,233
of 190,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 279 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 190,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.