Exploring the diverse definitions of 'evidence': a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To 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. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Definitions 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. RESULTS: Forty-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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews?

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.

Prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus, syphilis, and hepatitis B and C virus infections in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: At the 74th World Health Assembly, the WHO issued a strategy for the prevention and control of several major infectious diseases. To achieve the WHO-initiated targets for these infectious diseases, the elimination of mother-to-child transmission is essential. To date, a systematic review of the global and regional prevalence of infections with relevant mother-to-child transmission and outside the spectrum of congenital infections is lacking. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and syphilis in pregnant women. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang database and China Biology Medicine disc database, and five WHO Regional Index Medicus databases. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies reporting the prevalence of infection or coinfection of HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis in pregnant women. METHODS: This systematic review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses 2020 checklist. We used random-effects models to generate pooled prevalence estimates for each infection. RESULTS: The global pooled prevalence in pregnant women of HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis was 2.9% (95% CI, 2.4-3.4%), 4.8% (3.8-5.8%), 1.0% (0.8-1.3%), and 0.8% (0.7-0.9%). The pooled prevalence of HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis in low-income countries was higher than the global level (HIV: 5.2% [1.6-10.5%); HBV: 6.6% (5.4-7.9%); HCV: 2.7% (1.6-4.1%); syphilis: 3.3% (2.2-4.6%]). The pooled prevalence of HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis in lower-middle-income countries was higher than the global level (HIV: 2.9% [0.8-6.1%]; HBV: 4.9% [3.8-6.1%]; HCV: 2.3% [1.2-3.6%]; syphilis: 1.5% [1.0-2.2%]). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of these infections among pregnant women was particularly high in resource-poor settings. The relevance and feasibility of current global practice guidelines for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of these infections in lower-middle-income countries must be evaluated, including timely access to screening and therapeutics.

Developing the RIGHT-COI&F extension for the reporting conflicts of interest and funding in practice guidelines: study protocol.

Background: Conflicts of interest (COI) and funding may influence the development of practice guidelines, but there are no internationally endorsed guidelines specifically focusing on the reporting on issues related to COI and funding in practice guidelines. Our aim is to develop an extension of the essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) for COIs and Funding in practice guidelines (i.e., RIGHT-COI&F). Methods: We will follow the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network's toolkit for developing a reporting guideline in six stages: (I) identifying the need for the extension; (II) registering the project and setting up working groups; (III) collecting the initial items; (IV) reaching consensus on the items to be included; (V) revision and formulation of the final checklist; and (VI) dissemination and implementation. We intend to form a multidisciplinary international team of experts to collect and evaluate the items and plan to complete the full reporting guideline in about 2 years. Discussion: The RIGHT-COI&F statement will help guideline developers improve their reporting of issues related to COIs and funding, and subsequently improve the reporting quality of their guidelines. Journals editors, guideline users and evaluators will benefit from a more complete and transparent reporting of COI. Trial Registration: We have registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network (https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#RIGHT-COI).

COVID-19 vaccine guidelines was numerous in quantity but many lack transparent reporting of methodological practices.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of COVID-19 vaccine guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched databases, Google and guideline platforms to retrieve COVID-19 vaccine guidelines published between January 1, 2020 and July 8, 2021. We worked in pairs to identify the eligible guidelines and extract data of whether the methodology, funding, and conflict of interests were assessed/reported, and so on. Results were presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 106 COVID-19 vaccine guidelines were included. In the first half of 2021, on average 15 guidelines were published every month. Fifty (47.2%) guidelines addressed the vaccination of people with specific medical conditions, and 18 (17.0%) guidelines focused on adverse effects after vaccination. Only 28 (26.4%) guidelines reported the methodology they used. Four (3.8%) of guidelines assessed both the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations; 42 (39.6%) and 65 (61.3%) guidelines reported their funding sources and conflict of interest, respectively. Most guidelines were published in English (n = 92, 86.8%). CONCLUSION: A high number of guidelines on COVID-19 vaccines have been published in the recent months, but most of them lack clear and transparent reporting of methodology, funding, and conflicts of interest. Rigorous methodological and reporting quality evaluation of these guidelines is needed.

Establishment of an architecture-specific experimental validation approach for finite element modeling of bone by rapid prototyping and high resolution computed tomography.

A new experimental validation method for assessing the accuracy of large-scale finite element (FE) models of bone micro-structure at the apparent and tissue level was developed. Augmented scaled bone replicas were built using rapid prototype machines based on micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) data. The geometric accuracy of the model was evaluated by comparing experimental tests with the replicas to the FE solution based on the same micro-CT data. A new version of the large-scale FE solver was developed to incorporate orthotropic material properties, hence the experimentally determined properties of the rapid prototype material were input into the FE models. The modified FE solver predicted the experimental apparent level stiffness within less than 1%, and the difference between experimental strain gauge measurements and FE-calculated surface stresses was 7% and 49% on a flat and curved surface region, respectively. While absolute error estimates of surface stresses were limited due to strain gauge errors, the relatively larger difference on the curved surface is indicative of the limitations of a hexahedron FE model for representing such geometries. Although the validation approach is applied here for hexahedron based meshes, the method is flexible for varying bone architectures and will be important for validation of future large-scale FE modeling developments that utilize techniques such as mesh smoothing and tetrahedron elements.