[Interpreting the evidence. Reducing subjectivity in appraising the evidence calls for a return to teaching evidence-based medicine]

Recenti Prog Med. 2024 May;115(5):213-214. doi: 10.1701/4262.42399.
[Article in Italian]


The interpretation of clinical research evidence is still characterized by wide subjectivity. This subjectivity is also visible when comparing guidelines and recommendations developed by institutions and learned societies. It is often due to bias and conflicts of interest experienced by the members of guideline panels: thus, the role of editors and publishers of journals and scientific media becomes increasingly important, and they should return to careful oversight of the content of what is published. To address the problem, however, it is necessary to return to teaching evidence-based medicine in order to restore its function as a "North star" in clinical practice and public health decision-making.

Publication types

  • English Abstract

MeSH terms

  • Bias
  • Biomedical Research / education
  • Conflict of Interest*
  • Decision Making
  • Evidence-Based Medicine* / education
  • Humans
  • Periodicals as Topic
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic*
  • Public Health / education
  • Publishing / standards