↓ Skip to main content

History and Development of Evidence‐based Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, April 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
174 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
384 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
History and Development of Evidence‐based Medicine
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, April 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00268-005-7910-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey A. Claridge, Timothy C. Fabian

Abstract

This article illustrates the timeline of the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The term "evidence-based medicine" is relatively new. In fact, as far as we can tell, investigators from McMaster's University began using the term during the 1990s. EBM was defined as "a systemic approach to analyze published research as the basis of clinical decision making." Then in 1996, the term was more formally defined by Sacket et al., who stated that EBM was "the conscientious and judicious use of current best evidence from clinical care research in the management of individual patients." Ancient era EBM consists of ancient historical or anecdotal accounts of what may be loosely termed EBM. This was followed by the development of the renaissance era of EBM, which began roughly during the seventeenth century. During this era personal journals were kept and textbooks began to become more prominent. This was followed by the 1900s, during an era we term the transitional era of EBM (1900-1970s). Knowledge during this era could be shared more easily in textbooks and eventually peer-reviewed journals. Finally, during the 1970s we enter the modern era of EBM. Technology has had a large role in the advancement of EBM. Computers and database software have allowed compilation of large amounts of data. The Index Medicus has become a medical dinosaur of the past that students of today likely do not recognize. The Internet has also allowed incredible access to masses of data and information. However, we must be careful with an overabundance of "unfiltered" data. As history, as clearly shown us, evidence and data do not immediately translate into evidence based practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 384 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 362 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 19%
Student > Bachelor 55 14%
Researcher 36 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 9%
Student > Postgraduate 31 8%
Other 83 22%
Unknown 72 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 7%
Social Sciences 24 6%
Psychology 16 4%
Other 63 16%
Unknown 80 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,217,381
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#257
of 4,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,565
of 73,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 73,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.