Hijacked evidence-based medicine: stay the course and throw the pirates overboard

  • John P.A. Ioannidis
    Corresponding author. Tel.: 650-7236147.
    Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1265 Welch Rd, MSOB X306, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1265 Welch Rd, MSOB X306, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, 1265 Welch Rd, MSOB X306, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd, MSOB X306, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
    Search for articles by this author


      The article discusses a number of criticisms that have been raised against evidence-based medicine, such as focusing on benefits and ignoring adverse events; being interested in averages and ignoring the wide variability in individual risks and responsiveness; ignoring clinician-patient interaction and clinical judgement; leading to some sort of reductionism; and falling prey to corruption from conflicts of interest. I argue that none of these deficiencies are necessarily inherent to evidence-based medicine. In fact, work in evidence-based medicine has contributed a lot towards minimizing these deficiencies in medical research and medical care. However, evidence-based medicine is paying the price of its success: having become more widely recognized, it is manipulated and misused to support subverted or perverted agendas that are hijacking its reputation value. Sometimes the conflicts behind these agendas are so strong that one worries about whether the hijacking of evidence-based medicine is reversible. Nevertheless, evidence-based medicine is a valuable conceptual toolkit and it is worth to try to remove the biases of the pirates who have hijacked its ship.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 73: 82-86
        • Fava G.A.
        Evidence-based medicine was bound to fail: a report to Alvan Feinstein.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 84: 3-7
        • Engel G.L.
        Physician scientists and scientific physicians.
        Am J Med. 1987; 82: 107-111
        • Feinstein A.R.
        • Horwitz R.I.
        Problems in the “evidence” of “evidence-based medicine”.
        Am J Med. 1997; 103: 529-535
        • Sackett D.L.
        • Rosenberg W.M.
        • Gray J.A.
        • Haynes R.B.
        • Richardson W.S.
        Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 71-72
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced.
        Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 1737-1739
        • Golder S.
        • Loke Y.K.
        • Wright K.
        • Norman G.
        Reporting of adverse events in published and unpublished studies of health care interventions: a systematic review.
        PLoS Med. 2016; 13: e1002127
        • Assmann S.F.
        • Pocock S.J.
        • Enos L.E.
        • Kasten L.E.
        Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials.
        Lancet. 2000; 355: 1064-1069
        • Kasenda B.
        • Schandelmaier S.
        • Sun X.
        • von Elm E.
        • You J.
        • Blumle A.
        • et al.
        Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications.
        BMJ. 2014; 349: g4539
        • Sun X.
        • Briel M.
        • Busse J.W.
        • You J.J.
        • Akl E.A.
        • Mejza F.
        • et al.
        Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review.
        BMJ. 2012; 344: e1553
        • Joyner M.J.
        • Paneth N.
        Seven questions for personalized medicine.
        JAMA. 2015; 314: 999-1000
        • Joyner M.J.
        • Paneth N.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        What happens when underperforming big ideas in research Become Entrenched?.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 1355-1356
        • Manrai A.K.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • Kohane I.S.
        Clinical genomics: from pathogenicity claims to quantitative risk estimates.
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 1233-1234
        • Yavchitz A.
        • Ravaud P.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Moher D.
        • Hrobjartsson A.
        • Lasserson T.
        • et al.
        A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 75: 56-65
        • Ebrahim S.
        • Bance S.
        • Athale A.
        • Malachowski C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 70: 155-163
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?.
        BMJ. 2012; 345: e7031
        • Patsopoulos N.A.
        • Analatos A.A.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences.
        JAMA. 2005; 293: 2362-2366
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Why most clinical research is not useful.
        PLoS Med. 2016; 13: e1002049
        • Greenhalgh T.
        • Howick J.
        • Maskrey N.
        • Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group
        Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?.
        BMJ. 2014; 348: g3725
        • Greenhalgh T.
        Why do we always end up here? Evidence-based medicine's conceptual cul-de-sacs and some off-road alternative routes.
        J Prim Health Care. 2012; 4: 92-97