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.

Rapid recommendation is a novel methodological framework for developing clinical practice guidelines and this framework shares the basic features of classical guidelines but differs from classical clinical practice guidelines in its ‘rapid’ development process (typically within 90 days) with an aim of translat-ing practice-changing studies to recommendations. A recent global innovation of guideline development methodology is the proposal of a rapid recommendation framework for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which has the potential to add value to the translation of evidence to practice for TCM inter- ventions. Up to now, more than 180 rapid recommendations have been published, but none of them is pertaining to TCM interventions. Due to the nature of multi-dimensional evidence sources for TCM inter- ventions, including classical randomized controlled trials and real world evidence, a more sophisticated methodological approach to synthesize and evaluate the totality of evidence about effects of TCM in- terventions is required. Therefore, appropriate modification to the rapid recommendation framework is necessary. In the efforts to respond to these needs, we have proposed a specific approach to developing rapid recommendations for TCM interventions the Multi-dimensional Evidence Synthesis, Evaluation and Recommendations for TCM interventions (MESERT)

Background:This study aims to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline of acupuncture in the treatment of patients with moderate and severe cancer pain. Methods:The development of this guideline was triggered by a systematic review published in JAMA Oncology in 2020. We searched databases and websites for evidence on patient preferences and values, and other resources of using acupuncture for treatment of cancer pain. Recommendations were developed through a Delphi consensus of an international multidisciplinary panel including 13 western medicine oncologists, Chinese medicine/acupuncture clinical practitioners, and two patient representatives. The certainty of evidence, patient preferences and values, resources, and other factors were fully considered in formulating the recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results:The guideline proposed three recommendations: (1) a strong recommendation for the treatment of acupuncture rather than no treatment to relieve pain in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain; (2) a weak recommendation for the combination treatments with acupuncture/acupressure to reduce pain intensity, decrease the opioid dose, and alleviate opioid-related side effects in moderate to severe cancer pain patients who are using analgesics; and (3) a strong recommendation for acupuncture in breast cancer patients to relieve their aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia. Conclusion:This proposed guideline provides recommendations for the management of patients with cancer pain. The small sample sizes of evidence limit the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Purpose We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. Study design Living evidence-based guideline. Methods This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. Conclusion This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.

The movement in recent years towards evidence-based practice (EBP) in health care systems and policy has permeated the substance abuse treatment system, leading to a growing number of federal and statewide initiatives to mandate EBP implementation. Nevertheless, due to a lack of consensus in the addiction field regarding procedures or criteria to identify EBPs, the optimal processes for disseminating empirically based interventions into real-world clinical settings have not been identified. Although working lists of interventions considered to be evidence-based have been developed by a number of constituencies advocating EBP dissemination in addiction treatment settings, the use of EBP lists to form policy-driven mandates has been controversial. This article examines the concept of EBP, critically reviews criteria used to evaluate the evidence basis of interventions, and highlights the manner in which such criteria have been applied in the addictions field. Controversies regarding EBP implementation policies and practices in addiction treatment are described, and suggestions are made to shift the focus of dissemination efforts from manualized psychosocial interventions to specific skill sets that are broadly applicable and easily learned by clinicians. Organizational and workforce barriers to EBP implementation are delineated, with corresponding recommendations to facilitate successful dissemination of evidence-based skills.