Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 PhD student of Philosophy of science, Faculty of law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad university, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of philosophy,, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), as the current account of medicine, considers the latest evidence published in medical journal as the basis for medical interventions. In this case, articles that report the result of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), have a special place. But in recent years, it has been found that the result of many RCTs aren’t repeated in an effort for replication. This phenomenon, known as the replication crisis, has created some problem for EBM. In this article, reasons are presented that the consensus of the medical community in two process, reduce this conflict to the extent that it should still be accepted that EBM has a higher position than its competitors. The first process in which the consensus of experts is present includes the process of conducting RCTs, the process publication, and the process of entering them into medical interventions. Among other things, it is pointed out that in cases where there are more general conflicts between RCTs, meta-analyses cannot provide a partical solution, and there is no other way to choose between conflicting RCTs than to appeal to the consensus of the medical community. The second process, which is the process of comparing EBM, includes legal issues at a higher level, which are mentioned in the summary section only in the from of a hypothetical situation.
Keywords
)