TY  - BOOK
AU  - Pinkston,John Alexander
ED  - SpringerLink (Online service)
TI  - Evidence and Hypothesis in Clinical Medical Science
T2  - Synthese Library, Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science,
SN  - 9783030442705
AV  - R723-723.7 
U1  - 610.1 23
PY  - 2020///
CY  - Cham
PB  - Springer International Publishing, Imprint: Springer
KW  - Medicine—Philosophy
KW  - Research—Moral and ethical aspects
KW  - Medical ethics
KW  - Cancer research
KW  - Philosophy of Medicine
KW  - Research Ethics
KW  - Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
KW  - Cancer Research
N1  - 1. Introduction -- 2. Theories of Confirmation in which Hypotheses do not have Probabilities -- 3. Theories of Confirmation in which Hypotheses have Probabilities, and Inference to the Best Explanation -- 4. Confirmation of Hypotheses in Clinical Medical Science -- 5. A Weight of Evidence Account -- 6. The Weight of Evidence Account Defended -- 7. Justification for the Hierarchical Pyramid of Evidence-Based Medicine and a Defense of Randomization -- 8. Ethics and Evidence: Is Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials Necessary to Firmly Establish a New Therapy? -- Index
N2  - In this book, the author argues that no current philosophical theory of evidence in clinical medical science is adequate. None can accurately explain the way evidence is gathered and used to confirm hypotheses. To correct this, he proposes a new approach called the weight of evidence account. This innovative method supplies a satisfactory explanation and rationale for the “hierarchical pyramid” of evidence–based medicine, with randomized clinical trials and their derivatives, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials at the top and case reports, case series, expert opinion, and the like at the bottom. The author illustrates the development of various “levels” of evidence by considering the evolution of less invasive surgical treatments for early breast cancer. He shows that the weight of evidence account explains the notion of levels of evidence and other efforts to rank them. In addition, he presents a defense of randomization as a method to maximize accuracy in the conduct of clinical trials. The title also considers ethical issues surrounding experimentation with medical therapies in human subjects. It illustrates and discusses these issues in studies of respiratory therapies in neonates and treatment for certain cancers in adults. The author shows that in many cases sufficient evidence can be accrued to warrant generally accepted new therapies without the need for evidence derived from randomized clinical trials
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44270-5
ER  -