Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

The argument framework is a flexible approach to evidence in healthcare

Nature Medicine (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

An argument framework, grounded in the sciences of reasoning, provides an alternative to medicine’s measurement framework for evaluating and synthesizing evidence in healthcare.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Nodal diagram of argumentation synthesis for the effect of a precision oncology intervention on overall survival.
Fig. 2: Nodal diagram of argumentation synthesis to assess the impact of mask wearing on infection incidence.

References

  1. Rethinking evidence in medicine. Nat. Med. 29, 1 (2023).

  2. Upshur, R. E., VanDenKerkhof, E. G. & Goel, V. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 7, 91–96 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cartwright, N. & Hardie, J. Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide To Doing It Better (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  4. Upshur, R. E. G. & Colak, E. Theor. Med. Bioethics 24, 283–299 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stegenga, J. & Menon, T. Phil. Sci. 84, 414–435 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Landes, J., Osimani, B. & Poellinger, R. Eur. J. Phil. Sci. 8, 3–49 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Parkkinen, V.-P. et al. Evaluating Evidence of Mechanisms in Medicine: Principles and Procedures (Springer, 2018).

  8. Copi, I. M., Cohen, C. & McMahon, K. Introduction to Logic (Pearson Education, 2014).

  9. Fuller, J. & Flores, L. J. Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 54, 49–61 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gyawali, B., Kesselheim, A. S. & Ross, J. S. N. Engl. J. Med. 389, 968–971 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Richardson, N. C., Kasamon, Y., Pazdur, R. & Gormley, N. Lancet Oncol. 23, 563–566 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jefferson, T. et al. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6 (2023).

  13. Cash-Goldwasser, S., Reingold, A. L., Luby, S. P., Jackson, L. A. & Frieden, T. R. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e2339443–e2339443 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Greenhalgh, T. J. Eval. Clin. Practice 26, 1070–1077 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Howard, J. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2014564118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/3Q3OHXo (11 September 2023).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Jonathan Fuller

  2. Division of Hematology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

    Benjamin Chin-Yee

  3. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Benjamin Chin-Yee

  4. Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Ross E. G. Upshur

Authors
  1. Jonathan Fuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Chin-Yee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ross E. G. Upshur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Fuller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fuller, J., Chin-Yee, B. & Upshur, R.E.G. The argument framework is a flexible approach to evidence in healthcare. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02930-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02930-x

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing