Mechanistic understanding in clinical practice: Complementing evidence-based medicine with personalized medicine

Cecilia Nardini, Marco Annoni, Giuseppe Schiavone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the last century, medicine has undergone an unprecedented wave of radical changes. From the implementation of surgery up to the development of single gene-targeted therapies, clinical decision making has become increasingly complex to handle. Today, this complexity needs to be rethought in the light of two emerging paradigms: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and personalized medicine (P-Med). The new availability of diverse sources of scientific evidence raises significant issues concerning how clinicians will compare, evaluate and orient their decisions in front of a rapidly growing plethora of therapies, procedures, medical technologies and drugs. In this paper, we compare the background visions behind these two paradigms, evaluating their respective relevance for present and future clinical decision making. In particular, we argue that EBM and P-Med are driven by two diverse modes of reasoning about 'evidence making' in medicine. EBM is grounded on statistical notions and epidemiological data, generally gathered through systematic meta-reviews of randomized controlled trials; P-Med, instead, is grounded on mechanistic explanations of molecular interactions, metabolic pathways and biomarkers. While both paradigms are epistemically sound, we argue that they cannot, and should not, be hybridized into a unique model. Rather, they ought to represent two compatible, but alternative ways of informing the clinical practice. Hence, we conclude that clinicians may expect to see their responsibility increasing as they will deal with diverse, but equally compelling, ways of reasoning and deciding about which intervention will qualify as the 'best one' in each individual case.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1000-1005
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2012

Fingerprint

Precision Medicine
Evidence-Based Medicine
Medicine
Metabolic Networks and Pathways
Genetic Therapy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Biomarkers
Technology
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Clinical Decision-Making
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • clinical decision making
  • evidence-based medicine
  • P-medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Mechanistic understanding in clinical practice : Complementing evidence-based medicine with personalized medicine. / Nardini, Cecilia; Annoni, Marco; Schiavone, Giuseppe.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 18, No. 5, 10.2012, p. 1000-1005.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9cf330a8b29b487d92689fee4124cd78,
title = "Mechanistic understanding in clinical practice: Complementing evidence-based medicine with personalized medicine",
abstract = "In the last century, medicine has undergone an unprecedented wave of radical changes. From the implementation of surgery up to the development of single gene-targeted therapies, clinical decision making has become increasingly complex to handle. Today, this complexity needs to be rethought in the light of two emerging paradigms: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and personalized medicine (P-Med). The new availability of diverse sources of scientific evidence raises significant issues concerning how clinicians will compare, evaluate and orient their decisions in front of a rapidly growing plethora of therapies, procedures, medical technologies and drugs. In this paper, we compare the background visions behind these two paradigms, evaluating their respective relevance for present and future clinical decision making. In particular, we argue that EBM and P-Med are driven by two diverse modes of reasoning about 'evidence making' in medicine. EBM is grounded on statistical notions and epidemiological data, generally gathered through systematic meta-reviews of randomized controlled trials; P-Med, instead, is grounded on mechanistic explanations of molecular interactions, metabolic pathways and biomarkers. While both paradigms are epistemically sound, we argue that they cannot, and should not, be hybridized into a unique model. Rather, they ought to represent two compatible, but alternative ways of informing the clinical practice. Hence, we conclude that clinicians may expect to see their responsibility increasing as they will deal with diverse, but equally compelling, ways of reasoning and deciding about which intervention will qualify as the 'best one' in each individual case.",
keywords = "clinical decision making, evidence-based medicine, P-medicine",
author = "Cecilia Nardini and Marco Annoni and Giuseppe Schiavone",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01907.x",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "1000--1005",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mechanistic understanding in clinical practice

T2 - Complementing evidence-based medicine with personalized medicine

AU - Nardini, Cecilia

AU - Annoni, Marco

AU - Schiavone, Giuseppe

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - In the last century, medicine has undergone an unprecedented wave of radical changes. From the implementation of surgery up to the development of single gene-targeted therapies, clinical decision making has become increasingly complex to handle. Today, this complexity needs to be rethought in the light of two emerging paradigms: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and personalized medicine (P-Med). The new availability of diverse sources of scientific evidence raises significant issues concerning how clinicians will compare, evaluate and orient their decisions in front of a rapidly growing plethora of therapies, procedures, medical technologies and drugs. In this paper, we compare the background visions behind these two paradigms, evaluating their respective relevance for present and future clinical decision making. In particular, we argue that EBM and P-Med are driven by two diverse modes of reasoning about 'evidence making' in medicine. EBM is grounded on statistical notions and epidemiological data, generally gathered through systematic meta-reviews of randomized controlled trials; P-Med, instead, is grounded on mechanistic explanations of molecular interactions, metabolic pathways and biomarkers. While both paradigms are epistemically sound, we argue that they cannot, and should not, be hybridized into a unique model. Rather, they ought to represent two compatible, but alternative ways of informing the clinical practice. Hence, we conclude that clinicians may expect to see their responsibility increasing as they will deal with diverse, but equally compelling, ways of reasoning and deciding about which intervention will qualify as the 'best one' in each individual case.

AB - In the last century, medicine has undergone an unprecedented wave of radical changes. From the implementation of surgery up to the development of single gene-targeted therapies, clinical decision making has become increasingly complex to handle. Today, this complexity needs to be rethought in the light of two emerging paradigms: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and personalized medicine (P-Med). The new availability of diverse sources of scientific evidence raises significant issues concerning how clinicians will compare, evaluate and orient their decisions in front of a rapidly growing plethora of therapies, procedures, medical technologies and drugs. In this paper, we compare the background visions behind these two paradigms, evaluating their respective relevance for present and future clinical decision making. In particular, we argue that EBM and P-Med are driven by two diverse modes of reasoning about 'evidence making' in medicine. EBM is grounded on statistical notions and epidemiological data, generally gathered through systematic meta-reviews of randomized controlled trials; P-Med, instead, is grounded on mechanistic explanations of molecular interactions, metabolic pathways and biomarkers. While both paradigms are epistemically sound, we argue that they cannot, and should not, be hybridized into a unique model. Rather, they ought to represent two compatible, but alternative ways of informing the clinical practice. Hence, we conclude that clinicians may expect to see their responsibility increasing as they will deal with diverse, but equally compelling, ways of reasoning and deciding about which intervention will qualify as the 'best one' in each individual case.

KW - clinical decision making

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - P-medicine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866647476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866647476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01907.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01907.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22994998

AN - SCOPUS:84866647476

VL - 18

SP - 1000

EP - 1005

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 5

ER -