Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines

Knaapen, Loes; Cazeneuve, Hervé; Cambrosio, Alberto; Castel, Patrick; Fervers, Béatrice

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.019

Cited by 35 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with "pragmatic sociology" (Nachi, 2006) as applied to medical topics (Moreira, 2005;Knaapen et al, 2010) our analysis focuses on the justifications offered by participants in support or against the proposed FDA oversight of genomic tests, rather than attempting, for instance, to correlate participants' statements with a priori interests or their professional position. In addition to the more general arguments supporting this approach (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1999), in this particular case both opponents and supporters of the proposed regulation are to be found within each social category (manufacturers, patient advocates, etc.).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?

Bourret

Keating

Cambrosio

2011

Social Science & Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?

Bourret

Keating

Cambrosio

2011

Social Science & Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The various types of knowledge have different strengths and weaknesses. All these "knowledges" should be combined, assessed and weighed to be explicitly included or left out of the guidelines (Moreira 2005;Knaapen et al 2010). As stated above, decision-making processes are full of uncertainties (van Asselt 2005;Wynne 1996;Jasanoff 2007).…”

Section: Uncer Tainty In Evidence-based Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such methods are important to give meaning to uncertainties (Knaapen et al 2010). This article analyses some of these methods and explore how they deal with uncertainty.…”

Section: Guideline Development As Valuationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty and the Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines

Loon

Bal

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores how developers address uncertainty in the creation of an evidence-based guideline (EBG). As the aim of an EBG is to assist healthcare practitioners in situations of doubt, it is easy to assume that uncertainty has no place in guidelines. However, as we discovered, guideline development does not ignore uncertainty but seeks to accept it while establishing credible recommendations for healthcare. Dealing with omissions in knowledge, ignorance, or challenges in valuating different sorts of knowledge form the core of the work of guideline developers. Interviewing guideline developers, we found three types of valuation work: classifying studies, grading types of knowledge, and involving expertise and clinical practice. These methods have consequences for the credibility, and amount and kind of uncertainty EBGs can include.!

show abstract

“…While the standardisation of clinical guidelines has been well analysed in this respect (Cambrosio et al, 2006;Castel, 2009;Knaapen, 2013;Knaapen et al, 2010), a feature of multi-centre clinical trials that has been relatively neglected is the standardisation of material settings. Perhaps because of their mundanity these have received little or no attention in the clinical trials literature and limited analysis in social studies of science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Trials and the Drive to Material Standardisation

Montgomery

2017

S&TS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have long been calls from within both industry and academic groups to reduce the bureaucratisation of clinical trials and make them more 'sensible' , with the focus on approvals and guidelines. Here, I focus on the mundane environments of a multi-centre clinical trial to ask how 'sensible' it is to standardise trials at the level of material objects. Drawing on ethnographic data collected in the UK, South Africa and Vietnam, I present three vignettes of material standardisation. While acknowledging some positive eff ects, I argue that standardising in this way may be antithetical to sustainable and relevant clinical research. Three dimensions of this are discussed: 1) the external validity of evidence from pragmatic trials 2) the gap between experimentation and implementation and 3) long-term site capacity to conduct research. Drawing on the literature on 'situated standardisation' , the paper concludes by suggesting a greater acknowledgement of the need for trials not only to be 'sensible' but also 'situated' .

show abstract

Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines

Cited by 35 publications

References 21 publications

Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?

Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?

Uncertainty and the Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines

Clinical Trials and the Drive to Material Standardisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About