Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Casuistic Reasoning, Standards of Evidence, and Expertise on Elite Athletes’ Nutrition.Saana Jukola - 2019 - Philosophies 4 (2):19.
    This paper assesses the epistemic challenges of giving nutrition advice to elite athletes in light of recent philosophical discussion concerning evidence-based practice. Our trust in experts largely depends on the assumption that their advice is based on reliable evidence. In many fields, the evaluation of the reliability of evidence is made on the basis of standards that originate from evidence-based medicine. I show that at the Olympic or professional level, implementing nutritional plans in real-world competitions requires contextualization of knowledge in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • (1 other version)Hunting Side Effects and Explaining Them: Should We Reverse Evidence Hierarchies Upside Down?Barbara Osimani - 2014 - Topoi 33 (2):295-312.
    Philosophical discussions have critically analysed the methodological pitfalls and epistemological implications of evidence assessment in medicine, however they have mainly focused on evidence of treatment efficacy. Most of this work is devoted to statistical methods of causal inference with a special attention to the privileged role assigned to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evidence based medicine. Regardless of whether the RCT’s privilege holds for efficacy assessment, it is nevertheless important to make a distinction between causal inference of intended and unintended (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Is meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the efficacy of interventions a reliable source of evidence for therapeutic decisions?Mariusz Maziarz - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 91 (C):159-167.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • What’s in a gold standard? In defence of randomised controlled trials.Marius Backmann - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (4):513-523.
    The standardised randomised clinical trial (RCT) has been exceedingly popular in medical research, economics, and practical policy making. Recently, RCTs have faced criticism. First, it has been argued by John Worrall that we cannot be certain that our sample is not atypical with regard to possible confounding factors. I will argue that at least in the case of medical research, we know enough about the relevant causal mechanisms to be justified to ignore a number of factors we have good reason (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • When Patient Voices Get Lost in Evidence Hierarchies: A Testimony of Rare Adverse Events and Participatory Epistemic Injustice in Drug Safety Monitoring.Rani Lill Anjum, Christine Price & Elena Rocca - forthcoming - Social Epistemology.
    We explore an unsolved challenge in the era of evidence-based medicine (EBM): the recognition of the patient as an epistemic agent or ‘knower’. While patients are increasingly acknowledged as carriers of values and preferences, it seems more challenging to acknowledge them as carriers of important causal information. In contrast, the science of pharmacovigilance depends on patient testimonies as valuable sources of causal evidence. This incompatibility can give rise to cases of what has been called participatory epistemic injustice. We analyse the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evidence of mechanisms in evidence-based policy.Saúl Pérez-González - 2024 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 103 (C):95-104.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • (1 other version)Hunting side effects and explaining them: should we reverse evidence hierarchies upside down? [REVIEW]Barbara Osimani - 2013 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (2):1-18.
    The problem of collecting, analyzing and evaluating evidence on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an example of the more general class of epistemological problems related to scientific inference and prediction, as well as a central problem of the health-care practice. Philosophical discussions have critically analysed the methodological pitfalls and epistemological implications of evidence assessment in medicine, however they have mainly focused on evidence of treatment efficacy. Most of this work is devoted to statistical methods of causal inference with a special (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • The Epistemic Policies of Anti-Ageing Medicines in the European Union.Guillermo Marín Penella - forthcoming - Health Care Analysis:1-16.
    Anti-ageing medicines are products intended to extend lifespan and healthspan in humans that have a good potential use in public health policies. In the European Union, their development, production and consumption are dependent on regulatory science performed by the European Medicines Agency and its associated epistemic policies. They impose, among other things, an unfavourable burden of proof, a strict standard of proof and meta-methodological constrictions related to some theoretical issues. This results in a distribution of errors that tends to reduce (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Explanation, understanding, objectivity and experience.Michael Loughlin, Robyn Bluhm, Drozdstoj S. Stoyanov, Stephen Buetow, Ross E. G. Upshur, Kirstin Borgerson, Maya J. Goldenberg & Elselijn Kingma - 2013 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19 (3):415-421.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Research report appraisal: how much understanding is enough?Martin Lipscomb - 2014 - Nursing Philosophy 15 (3):157-170.
    When appraising research papers, how much understanding is enough? More specifically, in deciding whether research results can inform practice, do appraisers need to substantively understand how findings are derived or is it sufficient simply to grasp that suitable analytic techniques were chosen and used by researchers? The degree or depth of understanding that research appraisers need to attain before findings can legitimately/sensibly inform practice is underexplored. In this paper it is argued that, where knowledge/justified beliefs derived from research evidence prompt (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations