• Users Online:1201
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
DISCUSSION
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 192-203

Proving non-conventional methods: A paradigmatic paradox


Independent Researcher, Breda, Netherlands

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Lex A. L. B. Rutten
Aard 10, 4813 NN Breda
Netherlands
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijrh.ijrh_64_19

Rights and Permissions

Originally, it was thought that Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) would supplant decision-making based on intuition or plausibility. Later, it appeared that the gold standard in EBM, the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), was not as 'hard' a reference point as had been supposed, and an assessment of credibility was needed. After some decades, 'credible' RCT-centred EBM has led to the dismissal of therapies deemed to be implausible, such as Homoeopathy. Nevertheless, such therapies remain widely appreciated by patients who use them alongside conventional medicine. Nearly two hundred RCTs of Homoeopathy showed no difference in efficacy between Homoeopathy and comparable conventional trials. There is no proof that conventional trials are of better quality and there is no proof of harm by Homoeopathy. However, selective analysis of evidence shows statistically insignificant results, then interpreted as unscientific 'confirmation' of the hypothesis that Homoeopathy is a placebo. As a result, the use of Homoeopathy instead of antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections has been discouraged, despite the absence of evidence of the efficacy of antibiotics for this indication and an established risk of harm. Complex statistical interpretations of RCT evidence lead to impractical and even harmful advice. Credible proof is actually based on many subjective (often continuous) variables. As an endpoint for EBM, Bayesian probabilities, based on more than RCT evidence, would provide a more practical and personalised type of advice for patients, and would develop the diagnostic process into a prognostic framework, offering alternatives if one particular solution was to fail.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed663    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded120    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal