Critical care: does profusion of evidence lead to confusion in practice?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


There have been a plethora of articles on evidence-based practice or its many derivative terms (evidence-based nursing, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based health care, etc.). However, the word ‘based’ implies an almost unquestioning belief in evidence. I will argue that the term ‘Evidence Informed Practice’ is probably more accurate. This argument will be underpinned by Archie Cochrane's ‘road to Damascus' questioning of the value of soft over hard interventions and challenge what is held up as gold-standard evidence. The differences in definitions of evidence-based practice will also be discussed. Carper's identification of ethical, aesthetic and personal knowing will be used to debunk the myth that empirical evidence is always the gold standard for care and treatment. It will be argued that empirical evidence can be ignored when it clashes with other types of evidence. Finally, the tension between certainty and agreement with evidence will be explored.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)285-290
JournalNursing in Critical Care
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2010


  • Critical care
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Hierarchy of evidence
  • Intensive care
  • Nursing knowledge
  • Research methods


Dive into the research topics of 'Critical care: does profusion of evidence lead to confusion in practice?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this