An MD graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Philip Schoenfeld has served as editor-in-chief of Evidence-Based GI: An American College of Gastroenterology Publication, since 2021. Dr. Philip Schoenfeld’s work with Evidence-Based GI reflects a challenge facing modern gastroenterology. Namely, that clinicians must continually sort through a growing body of research and determine which findings are strong enough to influence patient care.
Evidence-based medicine provides a framework for doing that. Rather than relying primarily on tradition, expert opinion, or the results of a single study, it asks clinicians to consider the quality of available evidence alongside clinical expertise and the individual circumstances of a patient. The approach does not eliminate judgment from medicine. Instead, it gives physicians a more structured way to use research when making decisions.
This distinction is increasingly important in gastroenterology, where research is expanding across screening, diagnostics, medications, procedures, and dietary interventions. New findings can attract attention long before researchers have established whether they are reliable or applicable to everyday clinical practice. A study involving a small group of patients, for example, may produce an interesting result without providing enough evidence to change established treatment approaches.
Gastroenterologists look closely at how studies are conducted. Randomized controlled trials can provide strong evidence about the effects of an intervention, particularly when they are well designed and include enough participants to produce meaningful results. Observational studies have an important role as well, especially when randomized trials would be impractical or unethical. But they can be more vulnerable to confounding factors. Understanding these distinctions helps physicians place new findings in their proper context.
The size of an effect also matters. A treatment can produce a statistically significant result without making a meaningful difference in a patient’s health. Researchers and clinicians may consider measures such as absolute risk reduction, adverse effects, and the number of patients needed to treat when assessing whether an intervention offers a worthwhile benefit.
Evidence also needs to be considered as part of a larger body of research. One study rarely settles a complicated clinical question. When multiple studies reach similar conclusions, confidence in the findings generally increases. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can help clinicians evaluate the broader evidence, although their conclusions are only as reliable as the studies they include and the methods used to combine them.
Guidelines provide another bridge between research and practice. Professional organizations review available evidence and develop recommendations intended to help clinicians make consistent decisions. Those recommendations can evolve as new research emerges. This means evidence-based medicine is an ongoing process rather than a fixed set of rules.
For gastroenterologists, the challenge is keeping pace with this process without treating every new publication as a breakthrough. Publications such as Evidence-Based GI can help by highlighting important research and placing individual findings within a broader clinical context. Continuing medical education serves a similar purpose by giving physicians opportunities to examine emerging evidence and discuss how it may affect practice.
The growing volume of medical research makes evidence appraisal an increasingly important clinical skill. Gastroenterology will continue to change as new treatments, technologies, and research findings emerge. Physicians who can distinguish promising preliminary results from well-supported evidence are better positioned to incorporate useful advances while avoiding premature changes in patient care.
