Article Text

PDF
Who cares? The lost legacy of Archie Cochrane
  1. Clemet Askheim1,
  2. Tony Sandset2,
  3. Eivind Engebretsen1
  1. 1Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2Faculty of Humanities, Department of Cultural Studies and Oriental Languages, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Professor Eivind Engebretsen, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo 0318, Norway; eivind.engebretsen{at}medisin.uio.no

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement has sought to develop standardised approaches to patient treatment by drawing on research results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane Collaboration and its eponym, Archie Cochrane, have become symbols of this development, and Cochrane's book Effectiveness and Efficiency from 1972 is often referred to as the first sketch of what was to become EBM. In this article, we claim that this construction of EBM's historical roots is based on a selective reading of Cochrane's text. Through a close reading of this text, we show that the principal aim of modern EBM, namely to warrant clinical decisions based on evidence drawn from RCTs, is not part of Cochrane's original project. He had more modest ambitions for what RCTs can accomplish, and, more importantly, he was more concerned with care and equality than are his followers in the EBM movement. We try to reconstruct some of Cochrane's lost legacy and to articulate some of the important silences in Effectiveness and Efficiency. From these clues it might be possible, we argue, to remodel EBM in a broader, more pluralistic, more democratic and less authoritarian manner.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter Follow Tony Sandset at @tweetingtony and Eivind Engebretsen at @eivinden

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the idea and the conceptualisation of the paper. CA wrote the first draft, which was modified by EE and TS. All authors have seen and approved the final manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.