Why evidence-based medicine matters in veterinary care

A December 3, 2025 post from SkeptVet is making a broader case for evidence-based medicine as a frontline response to veterinary misinformation. In “What is Evidence-based Medicine, and Why does it Matter?”, veterinarian Brennen McKenzie says the profession’s challenge isn’t just access to data, but the reality that human observation and judgment are inherently vulnerable to confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and other reasoning errors. His central point: evidence-based medicine is a structured way to reduce those errors, not eliminate clinical judgment. (skeptvet.com)

That argument builds on a long-running evidence-based veterinary medicine movement. RCVS Knowledge defines EBVM as using clinical expertise to apply the best and most relevant scientific evidence while accounting for each patient and client’s circumstances and the context of care delivery. The Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine Association, founded in 2004, similarly describes EBVM as integrating the best research evidence with clinical expertise and the unique needs or wishes of each client in practice. McKenzie has been making versions of this case for years; in a 2015 paper, he described evidence-based veterinary medicine as the adaptation of evidence-based medicine principles to veterinary practice and argued that better information management leads to better decisions and better patient care. (rcvsknowledge.org)

In the new post, McKenzie leans hard into the misinformation angle. He writes that the profession is operating in an environment where “science is under attack and misinformation is rampant,” and he connects that climate to everyday clinical risk: misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, rejection of effective therapies, and use of ineffective ones. He defines evidence-based medicine as the “conscientious, explicit, and judicious integration” of controlled research evidence with clinical expertise and client goals and values, echoing the classic evidence-based medicine formulation originally set out in human medicine and later adapted for veterinary use. (skeptvet.com)

One useful nuance for veterinary teams is that this isn’t a call for cookbook medicine. Both McKenzie’s earlier work and current EBVM organizations stress that evidence-based care does not mean blindly following randomized controlled trials or ignoring the realities of species differences, limited evidence, cost constraints, or client preferences. In fact, McKenzie argues that EBVM is especially valuable when evidence is incomplete, because it helps clinicians systematically identify and communicate uncertainty. That matters in veterinary medicine, where the evidence base is often thinner than in human healthcare and where clinicians still have to make decisions in real time. (cdn.ymaws.com)

There are also signs of ongoing debate within the evidence-based camp itself. In comments on the post, one reader argued that strong proof of efficacy should generally require two good independent randomized controlled trials, while McKenzie responded that RCTs are important but imperfect and that clinicians need a broader framework because such trials are not always feasible. That exchange reflects a familiar tension in veterinary medicine: how to uphold rigorous standards without pretending that only one study design can answer every clinical question. (skeptvet.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the practical takeaway is that evidence-based medicine is as much a communication discipline as a scientific one. It gives clinicians a framework for evaluating claims, ranking evidence quality, explaining uncertainty, and helping pet parents understand why a recommendation is stronger than a social media testimonial or influencer claim. Resources from RCVS Knowledge, including journal watch, journal clubs, evidence collections, and an EBVM toolkit, suggest the field is increasingly focused on making those skills usable in day-to-day practice rather than leaving them in academia. (rcvsknowledge.org)

That’s especially relevant in the misinformation category, where the pressure on veterinary teams often shows up exam room by exam room. Whether the issue is raw diets, supplements, vaccine hesitancy, alternative therapies, or online treatment claims, EBVM offers a way to respond without overpromising certainty. It supports a more transparent conversation: here’s what we know, here’s how strong the evidence is, here’s where uncertainty remains, and here’s why this recommendation is still the best fit for this patient and this pet parent. That kind of trust-building may be one of EBVM’s most important clinical functions right now. This last point is an inference drawn from the EBVM frameworks and McKenzie’s emphasis on misinformation and uncertainty. (skeptvet.com)

What to watch: The next step is likely less about new definitions and more about implementation, including continuing education, clinical tools, and practice workflows that help busy teams appraise evidence quickly and communicate it clearly to pet parents. (rcvsknowledge.org)