While evidence-based practice (EBP) is widely regarded as a gold standard in many fields, it's not without its criticisms or challenges. It's important to remember the limitations of EBP so that you can use it appropriately.
Ioannidis J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), 124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., Hing, C., Kwok, C. S., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 14(8), iii–193. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta14080
Ioannidis J. P. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic Reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank quarterly, 94(3), 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
Lee, H., Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Baik, S.-Y. (2013). Why isn’t evidence based practice improving health care for minorities in the United States? Applied Nursing Research, 26(4), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2013.05.004
Dawson, S., Campbell, S. M., Giles, S. J., Morris, R. L., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2018). Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 21(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12597
Hartling, L., Featherstone, R., Nuspl, M., Shave, K., Dryden, D. M., & Vandermeer, B. (2017). Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 17(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0347-z
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x