Six 'biases' against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine
BMC Medicine, ISSN: 1741-7015, Vol: 13, Issue: 1, Page: 200
2015
- 185Citations
- 467Captures
- 9Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations185
- Citation Indexes182
- 182
- CrossRef142
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures467
- Readers467
- 465
- Mentions9
- Blog Mentions6
- Blog6
- News Mentions3
- News3
Most Recent Blog
Trish Greenhalgh: Towards an institute for patient-led research
“More powerful than the march of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come” – Victor Hugo The intellectual legacy of Rosamund Snow Rosamund Snow was a social scientist with type 1 diabetes; she was an academic at the University of Oxford and a Patient Editor for The BMJ. She led the field in questioning conventional approaches to patient and public involvement in research and in mainstreaming
Most Recent News
Empowering patient research
One of us – Joanne Hunt (Jo) – has been largely confined to the house for more than a decade, sometimes bedbound for weeks or
Article Description
Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is maturing from its early focus on epidemiology to embrace a wider range of disciplines and methodologies. At the heart of EBM is the patient, whose informed choices have long been recognised as paramount. However, good evidence-based care is more than choices. Discussion: We discuss six potential 'biases' in EBM that may inadvertently devalue the patient and carer agenda: limited patient input to research design, low status given to experience in the hierarchy of evidence, a tendency to conflate patient-centred consulting with use of decision tools; insufficient attention to power imbalances that suppress the patient's voice, over-emphasis on the clinical consultation, and focus on people who seek and obtain care (rather than the hidden denominator of those that do not seek or cannot access care). Summary: To reduce these 'biases', EBM should embrace patient involvement in research, make more systematic use of individual ('personally significant') evidence, take a more interdisciplinary and humanistic view of consultations, address unequal power dynamics in healthcare encounters, support patient communities, and address the inverse care law.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84940497027&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26324223; https://facultyopinions.com/prime/725760777#eval793524141; http://dx.doi.org/10.3410/f.725760777.793524141; http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x; https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x; https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x; https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12916-015-0437-x; http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/200
Faculty Opinions Ltd
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know