Defending EBM


Fam Pract Manag. 2004 May;11(5):22.

To the Editor:

Robert Edsall’s editorial “The Evidence-Based Medicine Heresy” [February 2004, page 13] scared me. As a teacher and practitioner of EBM, I am fully aware that as long as the probability of an outcome is neither zero nor one, there will be the potential for harm using the most rational approach to patient care. Still, your report of Dr. Merenstein’s experience with the lawyer’s demonizing of EBM is worrisome.

But before we start ordering prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests on all males over the age of puberty, we might consider the following scenario. What might have happened if another 53-year-old patient of Dr. Merenstein had a recommended PSA that was elevated, underwent a biopsy that found no evidence of cancer and had a serious complication or died as a result of the procedure? An angry patient or family would probably find a lawyer. If that person were clever, he or she would find information and experts to show that EBM recommendations represented the highest quality of care and that a screening PSA was not a necessary test. I don’t know whether such litigation has actually taken place, but it certainly would be possible.

So what do we do with EBM? Well, if we expect it or any other aid to medical practice to provide certainty, then we probably should be in a different field. It is not heretical to seek and use the best evidence available, as long as we temper it with our own experience, the patient’s wishes and, apparently, the vagaries of our legal system.


Send your comments to fpmedit@aafp.org. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. We cannot respond to all letters we receive. Those chosen for publication will be edited for length and style.


Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact fpmserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Mar-Apr 2019

Access the latest issue
of FPM journal

Read the Issue

FPM E-Newsletter

Sign up to receive FPM's free, weekly e-newsletter, "Quick Tips & Insights."

Sign Up Now


Making Sense of MACRA: Options for Meeting the 2018 MIPS Requirements

To avoid a negative payment adjustment from Medicare in 2020, practices must achieve a MIPS final score of at least 15 points for the 2018 performance period. Here's how to meet this performance threshold.