scholarly journals Current Situation and Perspectives of Clinical Study in Integrative Medicine in China

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Wang ◽  
Xingjiang Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Integrative Medicine ◽  
Classical Theory ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
China Model ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
And Control ◽  
Effective Drugs ◽  
Refractory Diseases

Integrative medicine is not only an innovative China model in clinical practice, but also the bridge for TCM toward the world. In the past thirty years, great achievements have been made in integrative medicine researches, especially in clinical practice. The clinical achievements mainly include the following three: innovating methodology of disease-syndrome combination, excavating the classical theory in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), preventing and curing refractory diseases. The development ideas and strategies of integrative medicine for future mainly include (a) standing on frontier field of international medicine and improving the capability of preventing and curing refractory diseases; (b) moving prevention and control strategy forward and improving the curative effect of common and frequent disease; (c) excavating the classical theory of TCM and broadening the treatment system of modern medicine; (d) improving the innovation level of new high effective drugs on the basis of classical prescriptions and herbs in TCM; (e) rerecognizing the theory of formula corresponding to syndrome in TCM and enhancing the level of clinical research evidence based on evidence-based medicine. Integrative medicine will do obtain greater achievements in creating new medicine and pharmacology and make more tremendous contributions for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and human health care.

Is “scientifically informed, yet humanistic medicine” the solution to the crisis of modern medicine? A friendly corrective to the emergent model of Person-Centered Medicine

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Goldenberg
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Model Evidence ◽  
Humanistic Medicine ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Conceptual Confusion

In Miles and Mezzich’s programmatic paper “The care of the patient and the soul of the clinic: person-centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice”, the authors draw from a wide variety of sources to frame a theoretical underpinning for the emerging concept of “person-centered medicine” as a model of clinical practice. The sources include humanistic and phenomenological medicine, the biopsychosocial model, evidence-based medicine, critics of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care. Each offer commendable desiderata, which Miles and Mezzich selectively integrate into their burgeoning theoretical framework. My concern is that the selective uptake of desirably qualities from such diverse resources in order to progress person-centered medicine’s developing vision of “medicine for the person, by the person and with the person” obscures important theoretical differences among these sources that will likely result in difficulty for the concept of person-centered medicine. These diverse theoretical resources offer competing correctives to the problems with medicine. Some of these differences are irreconcilable and need to be highlighted in order to avoid creating conceptual confusion and allegiance to unproductive theoretical commitments at this critical point of framing and developing this emergent model of modern clinical practice. 

Response to Miles and Mezzich

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Roger Kerry ◽  
Rani Lill Anjum ◽  
Stephen Mumford
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Discussion Paper ◽  
Opportunity To Respond ◽  
General Thesis ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Valuable Role

Miles and Mezzich offer a substantial and focussed account of a “crisis” of knowledge, care, compassion and costs in modern medicine. Their claim is that an over-emphasis on scientific, even scientistic medicine, has resulted in the depersonalisation of care. In response, they propose an emergent model of clinical practice grounded in person-centred medicine (PCM). We are honoured to have been offered an opportunity to respond to this paper. We will not attempt to de-construct the paper or rehearse arguments concerning the limitations of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Rather, we would like to support the general thesis of the paper and offer some form of thought related to how PCM might best develop.  In doing this, we will be very careful not to dismiss the valuable role that science and systematic research play in healthcare. Thus, we have little interest in using EBM as some form of ‘strawman’ by which to pronounce ‘the new way’. Parts of Miles and Mezzich’s paper appear at times to do this. Ultimately, however, we do not see this as the primary intent of their otherwise excellent discussion paper.

Theoretical Background of Human Based Psychiatry

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S16-S16
Author(s):  
M. Musalek
Keyword(s):  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Medical Intervention ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Post Modernism ◽  
The World ◽  
Rational Calculation ◽  
Mathematical Calculation ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
Based Medicine

Every medical intervention is embedded in the prevailing spirit of its particular time. The world of modern medicine that is still shaped by positivism is often revered as a world of rational calculation and reason, a world in which mathematical calculation and so-called objectivity are prized above all else. Indeed, today's modern medicine in general and its battlewagon evidence-based medicine is a world of sober number games, reduction and fragmentation, of demystification and de-subjectification. As important and indispensable the achievements of EbM are, it nevertheless needs to be expanded by a medicine, which focuses not just on illness and its treatment but which places the concrete individual with all his or her sufferings and potentials. Such a human-based medicine (HbM) is no longer indebted to modern positivism, but seeks its foundations in the maxims of post-modernism. Moving away from classical “indication-based medicine” toward a medicine based on human sufferings and potentials necessarily requires a fundamental change in diagnostics and treatment.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals Psychiatry in the future

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 277-278
Author(s):  
Frank Holloway
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Based Medicine

In an era of evidence-based medicine, policy-makers and researchers are preoccupied by the task of ensuring that advances in research are implemented in routine clinical practice. This preoccupation has spawned a small but growing research industry of its own, with the development of resources such as the Cochrane Collaboration database and journals such as Evidence-Based Mental Health. In this paper, I adopt a philosophically quite unfashionable methodology – introspection – to address the question: how has research affected my practice?

scholarly journals Research, biomedicine and Ayurveda: From evidence-based medicine to evidence-informed healthcare

2021 ◽  
pp. 01-04
Author(s):  
Sarika Chaturvedi ◽  
Nandini Kumar ◽  
Girish Tillu ◽  
Bhushan Patwardhan
Keyword(s):  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
The Public ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Tools And Methods

As the search for effective treatment for Covid-19 intensifies, traditional medicine systems are receiving increasing attention from researchers as well as the public. While scientific rigour is non-negotiable, there remain fundamental issues to be addressed when bringing evidence from traditional systems. Here we examine some of these issues pertaining to Ayurveda and the underlying philosophical underpinnings, and suggest potential ways to move forward. We find an ability to emerge from the cage of “biomedicalism” and its foundational reductionism essential for appropriate research in Ayurveda. We caution against pursuing research in Ayurveda by just mimicking modern medicine and highlight the need for appropriate use of modern science tools and methods to understand Ayurveda and explore its potential for healthcare. We emphasise the need and potential for transdisciplinary research in Ayurveda. A balance between evidence-based medicine and evidence-informed healthcare is required.

Principles of evidence-based medicine

2018 ◽  
pp. 3-14
Author(s):  
Abdullah Jibawi ◽  
Mohamed Baguneid ◽  
Arnab Bhowmick
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Grading Systems ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Evidence Grading ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is an effective tool for identifying and critically appraising quality research findings, and allowing the best to be integrated within clinical practice. EBM requires familiarity with evidence grading systems, key statistical methods, and requires a good understanding of how to review and critique scientific papers to guide the clinical practice. This chapter introduces these tools and provide an easy-to-use layout for reading academic papers in hand.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document