Article type
Abstract
Background: The term "evidence" not only is commonplace in daily life but, with the evolution of evidence-based medicine, has become integral in scientific research, often accompanied by related terminology. However, there exists a lack of clarity or misuse of the term "evidence" not only among scientists but also among decision-makers, policymakers, the public, and the media.
Objective: This study aims to delve into the definition of evidence while exploring the varied usage habits and definitions of the term among scholars.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted to delineate various definitions of evidence. Simultaneously, semistructured interviews were conducted with experts from diverse fields, including clinicians, researchers, methodologists, historians, editors, science implementation scholars, public and patient representatives, and legal professionals.
Results: The scoping review included 54 different definitions of "evidence." Interviews with 25 experts from 15 countries provided insights into the diverse perspectives on the definition and usage of "evidence" across different domains. A significant majority of scholars (84%) expressed that the current definition of evidence is unclear, emphasizing the importance of proposing a clear and widely applicable definition. When using the term "evidence" in their work, only 20% of interviewees explicitly stated that they would first clarify the definition of "evidence" and hope everyone is on the same page with them. This clarification aids users in understanding the scope and meaning when the term is mentioned. Additionally, scholars presented varying viewpoints on whether evidence is synonymous with information. Lastly, 60% of scholars offered their definitions of evidence. Detailed results will be presented during the conference.
Conclusion: Users should standardize the term "evidence," providing clear definitions and contextual usage to prevent instances of misuse and promote accurate communication.
Objective: This study aims to delve into the definition of evidence while exploring the varied usage habits and definitions of the term among scholars.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted to delineate various definitions of evidence. Simultaneously, semistructured interviews were conducted with experts from diverse fields, including clinicians, researchers, methodologists, historians, editors, science implementation scholars, public and patient representatives, and legal professionals.
Results: The scoping review included 54 different definitions of "evidence." Interviews with 25 experts from 15 countries provided insights into the diverse perspectives on the definition and usage of "evidence" across different domains. A significant majority of scholars (84%) expressed that the current definition of evidence is unclear, emphasizing the importance of proposing a clear and widely applicable definition. When using the term "evidence" in their work, only 20% of interviewees explicitly stated that they would first clarify the definition of "evidence" and hope everyone is on the same page with them. This clarification aids users in understanding the scope and meaning when the term is mentioned. Additionally, scholars presented varying viewpoints on whether evidence is synonymous with information. Lastly, 60% of scholars offered their definitions of evidence. Detailed results will be presented during the conference.
Conclusion: Users should standardize the term "evidence," providing clear definitions and contextual usage to prevent instances of misuse and promote accurate communication.