Philosophical controversies in the evaluation of medical treatments : With a focus on the evidential roles of randomization and mechanisms in Evidence-Based Medicine

Dissertation, Kth Royal Institute of Technology (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This thesis examines philosophical controversies surrounding the evaluation of medical treatments, with a focus on the evidential roles of randomised trials and mechanisms in Evidence-Based Medicine. Current 'best practice' usually involves excluding non-randomised trial evidence from systematic reviews in cases where randomised trials are available for inclusion in the reviews. The first paper challenges this practice and evaluates whether adding of evidence from non-randomised trials might improve the quality and precision of some systematic reviews. The second paper compares the alleged methodological benefits of randomised trials over observational studies for investigating treatment benefits. It suggests that claims about the superiority of well-conducted randomised controlled trials over well-conducted observational studies are justified, especially when results from the two methods are contradictory. The third paper argues that postulating the unpredictability paradox in systematic reviews when no detectable empirical differences can be found requires further justification. The fourth paper examines the problem of absence causation in the context of explaining causal mechanisms and argues that a recent solution is incomplete and requires further justification. Solving the problem by describing absences as causes of 'mechanism failure' fails to take into account the effects of absences that lead to vacillating levels of mechanism functionality. The fifth paper criticises literature that has emphasised functioning versus 'broken' or 'non-functioning' mechanisms emphasising that many diseases result from increased or decreased mechanism function, rather than complete loss of function. Mechanistic explanations must account for differences in the effectiveness of performed functions, yet current philosophical mechanistic explanations do not achieve this. The last paper argues that the standard of evidence embodied in the ICE theory of technological function is too permissive for evaluating whether the proposed functions of medical technologies have been adequately assessed and correctly ascribed. It argues that high-quality evidence from clinical studies is necessary to justify functional ascriptions to health care technologies.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Corroborating evidence‐based medicine.Alexander Mebius - 2014 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 20 (6):915-920.
Mechanisms: what are they evidence for in evidence-based medicine?Holly Andersen - 2012 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18 (5):992-999.
The role of basic science in evidence-based medicine.Adam La Caze - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (1):81-98.
The philosophy of evidence-based medicine.Jeremy H. Howick - 2011 - Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, BMJ Books.
What is clinical effectiveness?Richard Ashcroft - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33 (2):219-233.
Down with the Hierarchies.Jacob Stegenga - 2014 - Topoi 33 (2):313-322.
Evidence-Based Medicine Must Be ..A. La Caze - 2009 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (5):509-527.
Does evidence-based medicine apply to psychiatry?Mona Gupta - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2):103.
Ethics and evidence based surgery.G. M. Stirrat - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (2):160-165.
What evidence in evidence-based medicine?John Worrall - 2002 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S316-S330.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-03-20

Downloads
468 (#42,964)

6 months
68 (#74,820)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Assigning Functions to Medical Technologies.Alexander Mebius - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (3):321-338.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Thinking about mechanisms.Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.
Explanation: a mechanist alternative.William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2):421-441.
The philosophy of evidence-based medicine.Jeremy H. Howick - 2011 - Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, BMJ Books.
Rethinking mechanistic explanation.Stuart Glennan - 2002 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S342-353.

View all 25 references / Add more references