There is a huge disconnect between what science-based medicine calls evidence and what alternative medicine and the general public call evidence. They are using the same word, but speaking a different language, making communication next to impossible.
First, there is no such thing as “alternative medicine.” There is only medicine that has been tested and proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. If a treatment currently considered to be alternative were adequately tested and proven to work, it would be incorporated into mainstream medical practice and could no longer be considered “alternative.” It would become just “medicine.” So-called “alternative” medicine can be defined as medicine that isn’t supported by good enough evidence to earn it a place in mainstream medicine.
Basic science.
Test tube studies (in vitro).
Animal studies (in vivo).
Case reports—of a single patient.
Case series—reporting on a number of patients.
Case control studies (example: comparing people with and without lung cancer to see if there are more smokers in the group with lung cancer).
Cohort studies (example: following people who smoke and who don’t smoke over a period of time to see which group develops more lung cancers).
Epidemiologic studies (example: studying whether people in countries with more smokers develop more lung cancers. These studies can show correlations, but they can’t determine causation. Countries with more smokers might have other confounding factors that predispose to lung cancer).
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluate all the published evidence pro and con.
Takeaway – on the quiz!!
Basic science.
Test tube studies (in vitro).
Animal studies (in vivo).
Case reports—of a single patient.
Case series—reporting on a number of patients.
Case control studies (example: comparing people with and without lung cancer to see if there are more smokers in the group with lung cancer).
Cohort studies (example: following people who smoke and who don’t smoke over a period of time to see which group develops more lung cancers).
Epidemiologic studies (example: studying whether people in countries with more smokers develop more lung cancers. These studies can show correlations, but they can’t determine causation. Countries with more smokers might have other confounding factors that predispose to lung cancer).
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluate all the published evidence pro and con.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Putting this up in the classroom.
LikeLike
The comments after the post are fun too! People get so upset when asked to defend a belief. Why is that?
LikeLike