Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Humanities

On ways of knowing in medicine

Miriam Solomon
CMAJ March 01, 2016 188 (4) 289-290; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150673
Miriam Solomon
Department of Philosophy, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.
Roles: Professor and Chair
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Evidence-based medicine, translational medicine, narrative medicine, personalized medicine and precision medicine are all specially coined terms that have been used to herald new ways of knowing in medicine. I have listed the terms in chronological order, with evidence-based medicine starting around 1992 and precision medicine around 2011, making five methodologies in just one generation. I have been curious about what these terms mean, and what their roles are — substantive and rhetorical — in research and clinical contexts.

The most useful question to ask is “What lacuna is this new kind of medical knowledge intended to fill?” It turns out that each fills an important perceived need, and we can understand the new terms better by making these needs explicit and seeing how they unfold over time.

Evidence-based medicine (first mentioned in the literature in 1992)1 developed after the expansion of clinical trials in the post–World War II era. Both the number and quality of clinical trials were increased in the second half of the 20th century and, typically, new interventions were tested in multiple trials. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were valued as providing the highest quality evidence, there was no explicit process for assessment of overall evidence — varying in quality and from different trials — for or against a medical intervention. In fact, this was standardly left to a consensus of experts to decide, based on their familiarity with all the relevant clinical trials.2,3 When the evidence was clear and univocal, a consensus of experts was easily accepted. However, if the evidence was equivocal or discordant (i.e., different trials had contrary results), the objectivity of expert consensus was easily challenged. Evidence-based medicine provides explicit and (it is claimed) objective procedures for assembling and evaluating the evidence for or against a medical intervention. Systematic review with a hierarchy of evidence (RCTs at the top) and meta-analysis are standard techniques. The techniques come from epidemiology, and it would have been more descriptive to use the term epidemiologic medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. (On the other hand, the term evidence-based medicine has rhetorical power, because who would deny the importance of evidence?)

Figure
Image courtesy of mari/iStock

The need for translational medicine (first mentioned around 2002)4 became evident after a decade of emphasis on evidence-based medicine. The main focus of evidence-based medicine is phase III clinical trials. These trials are designed to determine the effectiveness of interventions in large populations. They take place after laboratory research, animal research, and phase I and II trials in humans (which focus on discovery, safety and establishing therapeutic doses). However, phase III trials do not take the place of the earlier research, and the earlier research is not properly judged by the standards of large-scale clinical trials. I claim that the bench-to-bedside meaning of translational medicine (i.e., the primary meaning of the term translational medicine) reflects an attempt to restore the balance between the various stages of research, and both fund and publish the earlier — often more risky — stages of inquiry. That is, translational medicine focuses on discovery and development of a new intervention, whereas evidence-based medicine focuses on testing and evaluating the new discovery. Furthermore, although evidence-based medicine offers explicit standards for experimental design and methods for aggregating the results of clinical trials, translational medicine offers little more than a metaphor (translation) to describe the difficult work of translating pure research into clinical applications. Perhaps the methods of translational medicine will improve, or perhaps we will need to accept that there is no logic of discovery and a metaphor is the best we can do.

Since the birth of scientific medicine in the late 19th century, the science of medicine has been contrasted with the art of medicine. The science has been variously described as including laboratory experiments, micromechanistic accounts (e.g., molecular mechanisms) and clinical trials. The art has typically encompassed a focus on care (rather than cure), an emphasis on the importance of the physician–patient relationship, and a concern with the ethical and humanistic side of medicine. Many people (both inside and outside the medical community) feel that the science side gets attention at the expense of the art side. Advances on the science side have often been followed by reactions from the art side.

Narrative medicine, which has roots in the bioethics literature of the 1980s, is the most prominent recent development in the medical humanities. Rita Charon’s book, Narrative Medicine: Honoring the Stories of Illness,5 uses methods of literary analysis in primary care clinical settings, arguing that “good readers make good doctors.” Narrative medicine is seen to fill the need for the art of medicine. It has been well-received in some clinical and academic settings and has also been discussed critically as being susceptible to the narrative fallacy (i.e., causal hypotheses are too readily constructed from sequences of events) and to the influence of constraining and politically dominant narratives.2,6

Evidence-based medicine has also been criticized for providing only statistical (epidemiologic) information about participants in clinical trials. The best kind of evidence it can give is that patients with characteristics similar to the test population will have results statistically similar to the test population. It cannot predict the results for particular individuals. Moreover, when patients differ from the test population in medically significant ways, clinicians can only make educated guesses about what the results will be. It is not surprising that clinicians and patients want more precision and more certainty than the epidemiologic techniques of evidence-based medicine can offer.

Personalized medicine emerged in the early 2000s, with the goal of using genetic and other molecular information to make new discoveries and predict patient responses to treatments more accurately. Its ethos is that it rejects the supposedly one-size-fits-all or “cookbook” therapeutics of evidence-based medicine. At first, this sounds like an ethos similar to that of narrative medicine, but the word “personalized” is a bit of a misnomer because this meaning of personalized medicine has nothing to do with people (taken in the humanistic sense). Perhaps confusion was facilitated by the pervasive cultural equation of our personhood with our DNA.7 Not surprisingly, the term “personalized medicine” came to be used to refer to all kinds of personalization in medicine and, especially, to a caring and personal physician–patient relationship. This is confused and confusing. I am glad that it seems to have been replaced more recently with the term “precision medicine,” which preserves the tailoring to individual cases without implying anything about bedside manner.

In his State of the Union address in January 2015, United States President Obama announced a $215 million Precision Medicine Initiative. This has the explicit goal of moving beyond one-size-fits-all medicine to offer more specific treatments in subgroups of patients (e.g., those with shared somatic cell genetics or shared tumour cell genetics). This does not mean that the methods of evidence-based medicine can be bypassed. In fact, it means that — all other things being equal — we will need larger test populations to get statistically significant results about subpopulations. Precision medicine is accompanied by a hope that the interventions it produces will have more reliable and larger positive effects than the traditional, less precise interventions designed for broad diagnostic categories. When the size of the effect is larger and more reliable, test populations can be smaller and still reach statistical significance.

Precision medicine also offers a general strategy for translational research: look at the variability behind similar diagnoses and design interventions that utilize this variability. Although not precise enough to count as a logic of discovery, it is more specific than the metaphor of translation and a change from the usual strategy of designing interventions around similarities rather than differences.

A good example of successful precision medicine is the recent development of genomic treatments designed for cystic fibrosis, which target the misfolded protein underlying the disease. These misfolded proteins can be produced in a variety of ways because there are a number of possible mutations of the CFTR gene. New therapies have been tailored to specific mutations of CFTR and are showing promise (e.g., ivacaftor has been approved to treat patients with a G551D mutation).

Evidence-based medicine, translational medicine, narrative medicine and personalized/precision medicine emerged at specific times because of perceived lacunae in medical methodology and knowledge. In general, they supplement and sometimes modify, rather than replace, one another. Methods develop along with medical knowledge; they are not settled in advance.

References

  1. ↵
    Evidence-based medicine working group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992;268:2420–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Solomon M
    . Making medical knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  3. ↵
    1. Baratz SR,
    2. Goodman C
    ; Council on Health Care Technology. Improving consensus development for health technology assessment: an international perspective. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1990.
  4. ↵
    1. Pizzo P
    . Letter from the Dean. Stanford Medicine Magazine; Fall 2002. Available: http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2002fall/letter.html (accessed 2015 Nov. 8).
  5. ↵
    1. Charon R
    . Narrative medicine: honoring the stories of illness. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  6. ↵
    1. Segal J
    . Breast cancer narratives as public rhetoric: genre itself and the maintenance of ignorance. Ling Hum Sci 2007;3:3–23.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Nelkin D,
    2. Lindee MS
    . The DNA mystique: the gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman; 1995.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (4)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 4
1 Mar 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
On ways of knowing in medicine
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
On ways of knowing in medicine
Miriam Solomon
CMAJ Mar 2016, 188 (4) 289-290; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150673

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
On ways of knowing in medicine
Miriam Solomon
CMAJ Mar 2016, 188 (4) 289-290; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150673
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The new medical model: a renewed challenge for biomedicine
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • How health care teams can help people with bedbugs: a patient’s perspective
  • Two goodbyes
  • Easing pain
Show more Humanities

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Article Types
    • Medicine & Society
  • Topics
    • Medical education, residency, internship
    • Medical humanities

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire