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.

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.

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.

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)

Objective: To describe and record the evolution of EBM in China. Study Design and Setting: We conducted the study following the general methodology of oral history. The interviews were done at Lanzhou University, between 18th and 22 nd April 2019 using pre-defined questions. All interviews were videorecorded. Two investigators extracted and analyzed the information from the interviews independently. Results: One international expert and ten Chinese experts participated in the interviews. After the introduction of EBM in China in the mid-1990s, more than 20 EBM centres have been established. According to the interviewees, Gordon Guyatt, David Sackett and lain Chalmers are the international experts who played the most important role in the development of EBM in China. China has contributed to EBM on the international level by conducting systematic reviews, developing reporting checklists, and introducing the principles of EBM into Traditional Medicine. The Chinese Cochrane Centre and the EBM Centre of Lanzhou University were ranked the top two EBM Centres in China by the interviewees. Conclusion: EBM has been developing in China for nearly a quarter of a century. Many achievements have been reached, however, EBM is still facing many challenges in China, including shortages of funding support and personnel, as well as limited local high-quality evidence. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Objective: To share the experience of promoting GRADE in China. Study design and setting: We designed the study and collected data on the following three aspects of the GRADE in China: the key activities related to GRADE, the main achievements of the GRADE, and potential challenges and future opportunities. Results: Three GRADE centres have been established in China since 2011. Seventeen articles of the GRADE working group have been translated and published in Chinese, and 31 articles have been written by Chinese scientists in Chinese to introduce and interpret the GRADE approach so far. More than 50 GRADE workshops and meetings have been held by GRADE centres in China, covering two-thirds of all provinces and autonomous regions of China. The percentages of societies from the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association (CMDA) that used the GRADE system to develop guidelines were 30% and 18%, respectively. Conclusion: Over the past decade, China has made progress in promoting the GRADE system and Chinese GRADE centres have made a significant contribution.

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.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease encompassing a broad spectrum of subtypes including acute, subacute, chronic and intermittent CLE. Among these, chronic CLE can be further classified into several subclasses of lupus erythematosus (LE) such as discoid LE, verrucous LE, LE profundus, chilblain LE and Blaschko linear LE. To provide all dermatologists and rheumatologists with a practical guideline for the diagnosis, treatment and long-term management of CLE, this evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the checklist established by the international Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group and was registered at the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform. With the joint efforts of the Asian Dermatological Association (ADA), the Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AADV) and the Lupus Erythematosus Research Center of Chinese Society of Dermatology (CSD), a total of 25 dermatologists, 7 rheumatologists, one research scientist on lupus and 2 methodologists, from 16 countries/regions in Asia, America and Europe, participated in the development of this guideline. All recommendations were agreed on by at least 80% of the 32 voting physicians. As a consensus, diagnosis of CLE is mainly based on the evaluation of clinical and histopathological manifestations, with an exclusion of SLE by assessment of systemic involvement. For localized CLE lesions, topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatment. For widespread or severe CLE lesions and (or) cases resistant to topical treatment, systemic treatment including antimalarials and (or) short-term corticosteroids can be added. Notably, antimalarials are the first-line systemic treatment for all types of CLE, and can also be used in pregnant patients and pediatric patients. Second-line choices include thalidomide, retinoids, dapsone and MTX, whereas MMF is third-line treatment. Finally, pulsed-dye laser or surgery can be added as fourth-line treatment for localized, refractory lesions of CCLE in cosmetically unacceptable areas, whereas belimumab may be used as fourth-line treatment for widespread CLE lesions in patients with active SLE, or recurrence of ACLE during tapering of corticosteroids. As for management of the disease, patient education and a long-term follow-up are necessary. Disease activity, damage of skin and other organs, quality of life, comorbidities and possible adverse events are suggested to be assessed in every follow-up visit, when appropriate.