Why evidence-based medicine still matters in veterinary practice

A new essay from SkeptVet is putting evidence-based medicine back at the center of veterinary debate, with a message that feels especially timely in a misinformation-heavy environment: good intentions, clinical experience, and confident storytelling aren't enough on their own. In the December 2025 post, veterinarian Brennen McKenzie argues that evidence-based medicine is best understood as the careful integration of controlled research evidence, clinical expertise, and client goals and values. He presents it as both a method and a mindset, one designed to counter the very human tendency to overtrust anecdote, tradition, and authority. (skeptvet.com)

That argument lands in a profession where evidence-based veterinary medicine is already well established, at least in principle. RCVS Knowledge defines EBVM as combining clinical expertise with the most relevant and best available scientific evidence, while also considering patient and owner or keeper circumstances. Its framework emphasizes a structured “5 As” process: ask, acquire, appraise, apply, and assess. The organization positions EBVM not just as an academic ideal, but as a tool for daily decision-making, quality improvement, and keeping pace with a fast-growing information environment. (rcvsknowledge.org)

The broader history matters here. A 2025 commentary in Veterinary Evidence describes EBVM as a discipline that has taken shape over roughly the last 20 years, building on the evidence-based medicine movement in human healthcare. The authors note that EBVM has spread through academic, regulatory, and clinical settings, but they also argue that it still faces practical, philosophical, and ethical challenges, especially when clinicians try to apply population-level evidence to individual animals. In other words, the profession has largely accepted the premise of EBVM, but is still working through how to use it well. (veterinaryevidence.org)

McKenzie’s essay leans hard into the cost of getting that balance wrong. His example from human medicine, delayed abandonment of prone infant sleeping despite mounting evidence of harm, is meant to show how slowly medicine can change when beliefs are reinforced by habit and respected voices. In veterinary medicine, the same tension shows up in debates over treatments marketed as holistic, integrative, or innovative before strong evidence is in place. That concern is visible beyond the blog itself: in a 2025 letter opposing recognition of veterinary acupuncture as an AVMA specialty, the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medical Association argued that specialty recognition should rest on a scientific foundation consistent with evidence-based medicine, and said the evidence for acupuncture doesn't meet that bar. (skeptvet.com)

Industry commentary suggests the issue is no longer limited to fringe modalities. AAHA’s Trends magazine wrote in late 2024 that misinformation now shapes everyday client interactions, and recommended that veterinary teams rely on peer-reviewed journals, veterinary college resources, and professional associations when correcting false claims. The article also emphasized that debunking works better when it's delivered with compassion, patience, and consistent messaging across practices. That complements the core promise of EBVM: not only improving medical decisions, but helping clinicians explain those decisions in a way pet parents can trust. (aaha.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, evidence-based medicine is increasingly a clinical skill, a communication skill, and a risk-management skill all at once. It helps teams weigh weak versus strong evidence, resist persuasive but unsupported claims, and make recommendations that can be defended medically and ethically. RCVS Knowledge explicitly highlights EBVM’s role in evaluating treatment approaches, marketing material, practice guidelines, and outcomes. In a market crowded with supplements, alternative therapies, AI-generated advice, and social media health claims, that discipline matters not only for patient care, but for maintaining credibility with pet parents who may arrive with information that sounds plausible but hasn't been properly tested. (rcvsknowledge.org)

There’s also a profession-wide implication. As the Veterinary Evidence commentary notes, EBVM has moved into regulatory and professional norms, not just classroom teaching. That means the standard isn't simply whether a clinician has experience with a therapy, but whether that experience is being integrated with the best available evidence and reassessed over time. McKenzie’s essay is a reminder that evidence-based medicine isn't anti-experience or anti-client preference. It's a framework for putting those elements in the right order, so the most persuasive story in the room doesn't automatically win. (skeptvet.com)

What to watch: Watch for this discussion to intensify around controversial therapies, client-facing misinformation, and continuing education, especially as veterinary groups push for clearer standards on what counts as evidence, what belongs in mainstream practice, and how clinicians should communicate uncertainty. (skeptvet.com)