Evidence-based mechanistic reasoning

Abstract

An evidential role for mechanisms Systematic reviews of high quality randomized trials generally count as the ‘best evidence’.1 How-ever, well-conducted randomized trials are some-times unavailable,2,3 unfeasible,4 unethical5 or unnecessary.6,7 In such cases other forms of evi-dence must be considered. Many EBM proponents accept mechanistic reasoning (‘pathophysiologic rationale’) for generalizability,1,8 hypothesis gener-ation,9 ruling out implausible hypotheses,10,11 and for supporting efficacy in the absence of other ‘stronger ’ forms of evidence. Yet because mechanis-tic reasoning has often led us astray,12,13 most EBM proponents are justifiably sceptical about using mechanistic reasoning as evidence for efficacy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 121 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.