Evidence‐Based Medicine or Cookbook Medicine? Addressing Concerns over the Standardization of Care

Evidence‐based medicine (EBM), which advocates clinical decisions are based on evidence from medical research, has become an important ideal pursued in contemporary medicine. EBM relies on two key principles: the evidence hierarchy and clinical practice guidelines. Both principles have been fiercely criticized, and critics often invoke the term ‘Cookbook medicine’ to stress the dangers and limitations of EBM. This article reviews diverse critical literature on EBM by drawing on the newly proposed subfield of “Sociology of Standards.” It reframes the manifold critiques on EBM as concerns over the harm that standardization can bring about and demonstrates how empirical sociological studies have contributed to a better understanding of EBM's justificatory basis and regulatory impact. First, it discusses the ‘politics of Evidence’ inherent in EBM's epistemological basis, secondly, explores the actual ‘evidence‐base’ of its tools in practice, and third, addresses sociological debates on EBM's regulatory impact. In the concluding section, I argue that a ‘Sociology of Standards’ opens up new research avenues by allowing scholars to challenge – or at least empirically investigate – a host of dichotomies. By doing so, the role of the patient in EBM can be reframed to allow for more productive empirical investigations.