This article discusses some of the misconceptions of evidence-based research in the health sciences. It proposes that since not all treatments in medicine and dentistry can be evidence-based, clinical applications of the evidence-based process should become a specialty. The case is particularly evident in dentistry. Therefore dentistry is taken in this article as a model for discussion. We propose that to approach dentistry from the viewpoint of the patient-oriented evidence that matters (POEM) is perfectly acceptable so far as we also engage in the process of research evaluation and appraisal in dentistry (READ). We distinguish between dentistry based on the evidence, and evidence-based dentistry. We argue that when invoking an evidence-based approach to dentistry or medicine, it is not sufficient to establish the 'levels of evidence', but rather that all evidence-based clinical intervention must undergo the stringent process of evidence-based research so that clinical practice guidelines be revised based on the best available evidence.

Contemporary Western medicine has witnessed a fragmentation of our conceptualization of the medical endeavor into 'traditional medicine' and 'non-traditional medicine'. The former is meant to refer to the Western medical tradition, the latter encompasses both 'complementary' and 'alternative' medical practices. Complementary medicine complements conventional medical treatments, and alternative modes of medical interventions are meant to replace traditional Western medicine. Evidence-based research must be directed at establishing the best available evidence in complementary and alternative medicine. This paper is the first of a set of four 'lectures' that reviews the process of evidence-based research, and discusses its implications and applications for the early decades of the 21st century. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the series by examining some of the historical and philosophical foundations of this research endeavor.

It is a common practice in contemporary medicine to follow stringently the scientific method in the process of validating efficacy and effectiveness of new or improved modes of treatment intervention. It follows that these complementary or alternative interventions must be validated by stringent research before they can be reliably integrated into Western medicine. The next decades will witness an increasing number of evidence-based research directed at establishing the best available evidence in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This second paper in this lecture series examines the process of evidence-based research (EBR) in the context of CAM. We outline the fundamental principles, process and relevance of EBR, and its implication to CAM. We underscore areas of future development in EBR. We note that the main problem of applying EBR to CAM at present has to do with the fact that the contribution of EBR can be significant only to the extent to which studies used in the process of EBR are of good quality. All too often CAM research is not of sufficient quality to warrant the generation of a consensus statement. EBR, nevertheless, can contribute to CAM by identifying current weaknesses of CAM research. We present a revised instrument to assess quality of the literature.

Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV) and the resulting acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) alter not only cellular immune regulation but also the bone metabolism. Since cellular immunity and bone metabolism are intimately intertwined in the osteoimmune network, it is to be expected that bone metabolism is also affected in patients with HIV/AIDS. The concerted evidence points convincingly toward impaired activity of osteoblasts and increased activity of osteoclasts in patients with HIV/AIDS, leading to a significant increase in the prevalence of osteoporosis. Research attributes these outcomes in part at least to the ART, PI, and HAART therapies endured by these patients. We review and discuss these lines of evidence from the perspective of translational clinically relevant complex systematic reviews for comparative effectiveness analysis and evidence-based intervention on a global scale.