Objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) are becoming essential evidence in the decision-making process within the field of social sci-ences. This study aimed to investigate how Campbell SRs were cited and explore their specific application roles.Study Design and Setting: We included Campbell SRs published between 2016 and 2020 by searching the Wiley online library, and retrieved the articles and documents citing Campbell SRs from the Web of Science and Google Scholar by December 31, 2021. We described the characteristics of the SRs and citations, and formulated a set of application roles by analyzing the sentences or paragraphs where the SRs were cited.Results: Sixty nine Campbell SRs were published between 2016 and 2020; they were cited in 641 articles or documents a total of 1,289 times. The primary types of articles that cited Campbell SRs were cross-sectional studies (n = 226, 35.3%), SRs (n = 112, 17.5%), ran-domized controlled trials (n = 77, 12.0%), and policy reports (n = 57, 8.8%). Articles utilizing Campbell SRs were predominantly led by authors from the United States (n = 184, 28.7%), the United Kingdom (n = 98, 15.3%), and Australia (n = 51, 8.0%). We formulated a set of 10 application roles for the Campbell SRs, of which the most frequent were: describing the current status in the field of interest (n = 691, 53.6%), corroboration of the results (n = 140, 10.9%), identifying research gaps (n = 130, 10.1%), and providing methodological refer-ences (n = 126, 9.8%); the role of supporting policy recommendations or decisions accounted for 6.0% (n = 77) of the citations. Approx-imately 12% of Campbell SRs were used to support policy recommendations or decisions.Conclusion: Campbell SRs are widely applied, particularly in scientific research, to describe the current status in the field of interest. Although the current application of Campbell SRs in supporting policy recommendations and decisions may not be predominant, there is a growing recognition of their value in using Campbell SRs to inform decision-making.(c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

ObjectivesTo systematically collect and analyse diverse definitions of 'evidence' in both health and social sciences, and help users to correctly use the term 'evidence' and rethink what is the definition of 'evidence' in scientific research.DesignScoping review.MethodsDefinitions of evidence in the health sciences and social sciences were included. We have excluded the definition of evidence applied in the legal field, abstracts without full text, documents not published in either Chinese or English and so on. We established a multidisciplinary working group and systematically searched five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, EBSCO, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and the Chinese Science Citation Database from their inception to 26 February 2022. We also searched websites and reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. Six reviewers working in pairs, independently, selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted information. Any differences were discussed in pairs, and if there was disagreement, it was resolved via discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted document characteristics, the original content for the definitions of 'evidence', assessed definitions as either intensional or extensional, and any citations for the given definition.ResultsForty-nine documents were finally included after screening, and 68 definitions were obtained. After excluding duplicates, a total of 54 different definitions of 'evidence' were identified. There were 42 intensional definitions and 12 extensional definitions. The top three definiens were 'information', 'fact' and 'research/study'. The definition of 'evidence' differed between health and social sciences. The term 'research' appeared most frequently in the definitions.ConclusionsThe definition of 'evidence' has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars and decision-makers in health and social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no widely recognised and accepted definition in scientific research. Given the wide use of the term, we need to think about whether, or under what circumstances, a standardised, clear, meaningful and widely applicable definition of 'evidence' might be helpful.

Background: Although non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size. Results: A total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating. Conclusions: The abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

IntroductionHealth information literacy is critical for individuals to obtain, understand, screen, and apply health information. However, there is currently no specific tool available to evaluate all four dimensions of health information literacy in China. Public health emergencies can present an opportunity to evaluate and monitor the health information literacy level of residents. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the level of health information literacy and to measure the reliability and validity. MethodsThe development process of the questionnaire consisted of the determination of questionnaire items, expert consultation, and validation. Based on the National Residents Health Literacy Monitoring Questionnaire (2020) and the 2019 Informed Health Choices key concepts, the researchers drafted the questionnaire, including all four dimensions of health information literacy. Experts in relevant fields were invited to evaluate the draft questionnaire, and revisions were made accordingly. Finally, the reliability and validity of the finalized version were examined in Gansu Province, China. ResultsThe research team preliminarily formulated 14 items encompassing the four dimensions of health information literacy. After consulting with 28 experts, modifications were made. A convenience sample of 185 Chinese residents was invited to participate. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.715 and McDonald's omega was 0.739 for internal consistency, and the test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient after 4 weeks was 0.906, indicating that the questionnaire content and measurement structure was relatively stable. ConclusionThis questionnaire is the first evidence-based assessment tool developed for monitoring health information literacy in China, and it has shown good reliability and validity. It can help to monitor the health information literacy levels of Chinese residents, promote evidence-based decision-making, and guide interventions to improve health information literacy.

Objectives: (i) To analyze trends and gaps in evidence of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures by evidence mapping; (ii) to conduct a cross-sectional survey on the use of the Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SR/MAs) of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures. Study Design and Setting: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched until July 7, 2022. SR/MAs investigated health effects of pollutants and extreme temperatures were included.Results: Out of 22,658 studies, 312 SR/MAs were included in evidence mapping, and the effects of pollutants on cancer and congenital malformations were new research hotspots. Among 16 SR/MAs involving 108 outcomes that were rated using GRADE, the certainty of evidence was mostly downgraded for inconsistency (50, 42.7%), imprecision (33, 28.2%), and risk of bias (24, 20.5%). In contrast, concentration-response gradient (26, 65.0%) was the main upgrade factor.Conclusion: GRADE is not widely used in SR/MAs of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures. The certainty of evidence is generally low, mainly because of the serious inconsistency or imprecision. Use of the GRADE in SR/MAs of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures should strengthen.& COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objectives: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. Study design and setting: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. Results: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. Conclusion: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement.

Background and ObjectiveConsidering that physicians and patients widely use acupuncture, it is necessary to explore its adverse effects during treatment. Herein, an evidence map was generated based on published studies to identify acupuncture-induced adverse effects and assess their severity, with the overarching goal of providing references for safe and effective implementation.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in four public databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and the Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies published up to 15(th) June 2022. In addition, relevant studies were explored in the Epistemonikos database and reference lists were retrieved as a supplement. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, Version 2 (AMSTAR-2) quality assessment tool was applied to determine the methodological quality of included systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analysis (MAs), whereas Microsoft Excel 2019 tool was used for data extraction and coding. Heatmaps were generated to display disease type, countries of origin for the first authors, and the sample sizes of original studies. Moreover, bubble charts comprehensively presented intervention categories, adverse reaction types, and evidence levels.ResultsA total of 535 SRs involving 33 adverse reactions were included. Among them, 22 studies were rated as high quality, 28 as moderate, 106 as low, and the rest were of critically-low quality. Numerous adverse effects were described in the studies, including syncope (86 SRs), organ or tissue injury (233 SRs), systemic reactions (113 SRs), infection (19 SRs), and other adverse events (373 SRs). Importantly, these adverse reactions were mainly associated with 19 acupuncture techniques, including electroacupuncture (n = 67), manual acupuncture (n = 47) and acupoint catgut embedding (n = 41). Furthermore, the 535 SRs described 23 diseases, among which symptoms, signs or clinical findings (83 SRs), mental, behavioral or neurodevelopmental disorders (67 SRs), and diseases of the nervous system (66 SRs) had the highest incidence.ConclusionThis evidence mapping explores the adverse effects of acupuncture, showing that there are multiple types of adverse reactions to acupuncture, with milder symptoms. The methodological assessment revealed that most of the included studies were of low- or critically low-quality. Therefore, there is a need for future randomized controlled trials and SRs to comprehensively analyze acupuncture-related adverse events in order to provide reliable and credible evidence.

Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases " has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management.Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, , gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management.Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias " and five SRs as "high quality. " Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events; 39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups.Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.

Background and Objectives: To review the efforts and progress in promoting quality and transparency of health research in China and to discuss how to improve.Methods: We focused on three different types of health research: clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, and summarized China's progress from their registration, implementation, and reporting stages.Results: In the last 3 decades, China's major works include the following: 1) For registration, the trials and CPGs registries have been set up, and released policies to mandate registration and submission of protocols for trials. 2) For implementation, multiple clinical research and EBM centers have been established. The ResMan platform for data management has been created and required researchers to share results data. 3) For reporting, the Chinese EQUATOR Center has been set up. Translations and extensions of the CONSORT, PRISMA, and RIGHT have been published. 4) For traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), specific guidelines for the registration and reporting of TCM research have been developed.Conclusion: China has made progress in promoting research quality and transparency, especially in research registration and reporting. Nevertheless, more can be done in data management and sharing for research implementation, and good publication practices in TCM.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.