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.

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.

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.

To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166). Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: center dot There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: center dot This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. center dot Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.