A medical burden of proof: Towards a new ethic

Vinay Prasad, Adam Cifu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In current medical practice, innovators, drug and device companies often debut new interventions before they have shown benefit in robust clinical trials. Practitioners readily use these new therapies, in many cases because the practice is financially rewarding and the intervention makes sense within practitioners scientific worldview. Oftentimes, years after a practice was introduced, the medical community puts it to the test in large, well done randomized trials. Empirical evidence suggests that when this happens, nearly half of those practices are contradicted. We call this phenomenon medical reversal. What are the implications of reversal on our current system of hasty adoption and widespread use of new therapies? Here, we outline the concept of burden of proof in medicine. In the era of evidence-based medicine, who has the burden of proof to show that a therapy works? Currently in clinical practice, innovators and manufacturers are not carrying the burden. Instead, third parties and brave researchers are often required to challenge medical standards years after their introduction. Here, we argue that such a system is untenable. The burden of proof to show that an intervention works must be held by those who develop a new therapy, and by practitioners who profit from the therapy before it is introduced. Here, we promote this as a new physician ethic.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)72-87
Number of pages16
JournalBioSocieties
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ethics
moral philosophy
innovator
medicine
Therapeutics
Evidence-Based Medicine
medical practice
worldview
evidence
profit
physician
Research Personnel
Medicine
Clinical Trials
drug
Physicians
Equipment and Supplies
Pharmaceutical Preparations
community

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

A medical burden of proof : Towards a new ethic. / Prasad, Vinay; Cifu, Adam.

In: BioSocieties, Vol. 7, No. 1, 03.2012, p. 72-87.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Prasad, Vinay ; Cifu, Adam. / A medical burden of proof : Towards a new ethic. In: BioSocieties. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 72-87.
@article{b60f0904a61e4783af4f7b0a4fbcd317,
title = "A medical burden of proof: Towards a new ethic",
abstract = "In current medical practice, innovators, drug and device companies often debut new interventions before they have shown benefit in robust clinical trials. Practitioners readily use these new therapies, in many cases because the practice is financially rewarding and the intervention makes sense within practitioners scientific worldview. Oftentimes, years after a practice was introduced, the medical community puts it to the test in large, well done randomized trials. Empirical evidence suggests that when this happens, nearly half of those practices are contradicted. We call this phenomenon medical reversal. What are the implications of reversal on our current system of hasty adoption and widespread use of new therapies? Here, we outline the concept of burden of proof in medicine. In the era of evidence-based medicine, who has the burden of proof to show that a therapy works? Currently in clinical practice, innovators and manufacturers are not carrying the burden. Instead, third parties and brave researchers are often required to challenge medical standards years after their introduction. Here, we argue that such a system is untenable. The burden of proof to show that an intervention works must be held by those who develop a new therapy, and by practitioners who profit from the therapy before it is introduced. Here, we promote this as a new physician ethic.",
author = "Vinay Prasad and Adam Cifu",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1057/biosoc.2011.25",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "72--87",
journal = "BioSocieties",
issn = "1745-8552",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A medical burden of proof

T2 - Towards a new ethic

AU - Prasad, Vinay

AU - Cifu, Adam

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - In current medical practice, innovators, drug and device companies often debut new interventions before they have shown benefit in robust clinical trials. Practitioners readily use these new therapies, in many cases because the practice is financially rewarding and the intervention makes sense within practitioners scientific worldview. Oftentimes, years after a practice was introduced, the medical community puts it to the test in large, well done randomized trials. Empirical evidence suggests that when this happens, nearly half of those practices are contradicted. We call this phenomenon medical reversal. What are the implications of reversal on our current system of hasty adoption and widespread use of new therapies? Here, we outline the concept of burden of proof in medicine. In the era of evidence-based medicine, who has the burden of proof to show that a therapy works? Currently in clinical practice, innovators and manufacturers are not carrying the burden. Instead, third parties and brave researchers are often required to challenge medical standards years after their introduction. Here, we argue that such a system is untenable. The burden of proof to show that an intervention works must be held by those who develop a new therapy, and by practitioners who profit from the therapy before it is introduced. Here, we promote this as a new physician ethic.

AB - In current medical practice, innovators, drug and device companies often debut new interventions before they have shown benefit in robust clinical trials. Practitioners readily use these new therapies, in many cases because the practice is financially rewarding and the intervention makes sense within practitioners scientific worldview. Oftentimes, years after a practice was introduced, the medical community puts it to the test in large, well done randomized trials. Empirical evidence suggests that when this happens, nearly half of those practices are contradicted. We call this phenomenon medical reversal. What are the implications of reversal on our current system of hasty adoption and widespread use of new therapies? Here, we outline the concept of burden of proof in medicine. In the era of evidence-based medicine, who has the burden of proof to show that a therapy works? Currently in clinical practice, innovators and manufacturers are not carrying the burden. Instead, third parties and brave researchers are often required to challenge medical standards years after their introduction. Here, we argue that such a system is untenable. The burden of proof to show that an intervention works must be held by those who develop a new therapy, and by practitioners who profit from the therapy before it is introduced. Here, we promote this as a new physician ethic.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858272552&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858272552&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1057/biosoc.2011.25

DO - 10.1057/biosoc.2011.25

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84858272552

VL - 7

SP - 72

EP - 87

JO - BioSocieties

JF - BioSocieties

SN - 1745-8552

IS - 1

ER -