Medical professionals are inundated continually with new findings from clinical trials. To counter the otherwise overwhelming task of knowing how best to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease, small teams of medical professionals take responsibility for aggregating evidence from clinical trials, systematically assessing said evidence, and summarizing what they find in a single, standardized written genre called the Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR). To better understand the rhetorical labor involved in synthesizing evidence in the biomedical backstage, this chapter takes as its object of study three CSRs. Each CSR provides cancer screening recommendations for lung, prostate, and breast cancers. By mobilizes Stephen Toulmin’s model for argumentation and classical rhetoric’s stasis theory, the chapter maps each CSR’s textual features, traces reviewers’ synthesizing activity, and conducts rhetorical analyses of CSRs’ extratextual features. Findings suggest that CSR reviewers end up cutting from their syntheses more evidence than they include. Ultimately, how evidences are cut, flattened, or homogenized is a matter of methodology. Given evidence-based medicine’s methodological fetishization, the chapter concludes by proposing a novel analytic heuristic for uncovering and critiquing evidential cut-making practices. Such a heuristic may help to prevent what some critics call “conceptual cul-de-sacs” in cancer care.
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.