Between evidence and experience: clinical decisions in veterinary medicine

Abstract

The article examines the tension between evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) and “experience-based” practice in clinical decision-making. It argues they are not rivals: evidence provides effect estimation, bias control, and accountability, while experience provides speed, contextual interpretation, and execution in real-world settings. The conceptual framework defines EBVM as the integration of scientific evidence, clinical judgment, and the circumstances of the patient and owner/producer, emphasizing that evidence varies in quality and requires an explicit assessment of applicability. It also distinguishes reflective experience from mere habit, highlighting risks from cognitive biases such as anchoring and premature closure when decisions are not checked against data. The practical “clash” arises from limited or poorly generalizable evidence, species and setting diversity, time pressure, costs and expectations, information overload, and regulatory demands—especially regarding antimicrobials. As a bridge, the article proposes deciding with “sufficient” evidence, adapting to the individual case, and turning experience into verifiable learning through documentation, outcome follow-up, and lightweight audits. The conclusions stress transparent reasoning, ethical proportionality, public-health responsibility, and a culture of continuous improvement to reduce unjustified variability and strengthen trust in the profession. In short, good decisions combine method, prudence, and systematic learning from outcomes.