↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
34 news outlets
blogs
19 blogs
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
2690 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
152 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
22 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
1328 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2384 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
Title
Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?
Published in
British Medical Journal, June 2014
DOI 10.1136/bmj.g3725
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trisha Greenhalgh, Jeremy Howick, Neal Maskrey

Abstract

This is a confession building on a conversation with David Sackett in 2004 when I shared with him some personal adventures in evidence-based medicine (EBM), the movement that he had spearheaded. The narrative is expanded with what ensued in the subsequent 12 years. EBM has become far more recognized and adopted in many places, but not everywhere, for example, it never acquired much influence in the USA. As EBM became more influential, it was also hijacked to serve agendas different from what it originally aimed for. Influential randomized trials are largely done by and for the benefit of the industry. Meta-analyses and guidelines have become a factory, mostly also serving vested interests. National and federal research funds are funneled almost exclusively to research with little relevance to health outcomes. We have supported the growth of principal investigators who excel primarily as managers absorbing more money. Diagnosis and prognosis research and efforts to individualize treatment have fueled recurrent spurious promises. Risk factor epidemiology has excelled in salami-sliced data-dredged articles with gift authorship and has become adept to dictating policy from spurious evidence. Under market pressure, clinical medicine has been transformed to finance-based medicine. In many places, medicine and health care are wasting societal resources and becoming a threat to human well-being. Science denialism and quacks are also flourishing and leading more people astray in their life choices, including health. EBM still remains an unmet goal, worthy to be attained.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,690 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 2,384 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 30 1%
United States 11 <1%
Canada 7 <1%
Norway 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
Australia 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Other 23 <1%
Unknown 2290 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 457 19%
Researcher 292 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 255 11%
Student > Bachelor 223 9%
Other 194 8%
Other 573 24%
Unknown 390 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 840 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 357 15%
Social Sciences 191 8%
Psychology 105 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 3%
Other 342 14%
Unknown 485 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2248. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#3,774
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#102
of 64,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12
of 244,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#1
of 718 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 244,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 718 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.