When we call unproven treatments "cures," we not only put patients at risk of harm, we create a framework in which evidence is no longer valued. Kelsey Chalmers and Judith Garber explore how this perspective could impact the low-value care movement, and how we need to reframe the issue to build a coalition for change. More
The FDA's about-face on emergency approval of convalescent plasma raises questions about the level of evidence we need for Covid-19 treatments, and the role of politics in these decisions. More
Do the potential benefits of thrombolytic drugs for acute stroke outweigh the potential harms? In a guest blog, Drs W. Ken Milne and Daniel Fatovich examine this issue in light of new evidence. More
Since the release of the initial NIH study results, clinicians and researchers have posed many questions about remdesivir, which have so far gone unanswered. Here are a few of them... More
In "Issues in Science and Technology," Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer explain how our toxic legacy of bad science in medicine has affected coronavirus research. More
Is hydroxychloroquine a "miracle cure" for COVID-19? Or just unwarranted hype? More
Doctors are increasingly recognizing that bladder pain and urgency is often a symptom of a larger problem with many potential causes. But has this recognition translated into change of practice? More
When it comes to dementia and Alzheimer's Disease, it appears that anxiety about cognitive decline is driving treatment decisions, rather than evidence. More
Randomized controlled trials are known as the "gold standard" in medical research--but they also have a significant down-side... More
How do we frame overuse not just as an issue of cost but also as an issue of harm? A recap of the Lown Institute meeting on overuse harms research. More