(NB below will be more elaborated!)
As evidence (e.g. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence) is used in many ways including convectively dismiss with ”no evidence” without no critical concern, I think it is, by many reasons, important to discuss with respect/humbly such critical scientific/clinical concepts/words avoiding a “besser-wisser” position.
As we do not have an absolute knowledge base, and need to differentiate between ideographic and nomothetic levels, hardly perfect methodology especially ratability and validities we may first define the word/concept like Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said: “ Seeing then that truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our affirmations, a man that seeketh precise truth, had need to remember what every name he uses stands for; and to place it accordingly; or else he will find himself entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twigs; the more he struggles, the more belimed.” https://libquotes.com/thomas-hobbes/quotes/Bird
That is, defining according to our private and/or consensus group/discipline paradigm.
One way to increase empirical studies value is also to do a, a priori knowledge based prediction (”scientific power”).
But still we have the Karl Popper world 3 problem, where we have a lot of reductionistic fragmentary information needed to be systems integrated into an ecological validity meaningful approach or a generalistic real world associated approach, if you will.
Too much fragmentary information may not be understood as “the truth, and nothing but the truth”.
Especially important in all clinical studies.
One large problem is that real world (especially in human) is really complex, often extremely complex which prevent us to try to understand e.g. clinical problems which mostly are multifaceted/multidisciplinary, based on reductionistic studies with few parameters … which means that we need create methods that can integrate to try to get an overall picture – something that meta-studies do not always focus on!
With the above I want to propose caution in our conclusions based on studies but, since we have limited knowledge in many ways, of course integrate our experience and collective knowledge about what we address. In clinical work, we don’t have much time for this, while in scientific work, we have (should have?) more time to elaborate and discuss. e.g. in terms of Thales ”criticize oneself and others and others do the same, so that together we can create safer knowledge” (NB how I understood Thales’ principle (as I call it).
Jerry N. Downing “Between Conviction and Uncertainty – Philosophical Guidelines for the Practicing Psychotherapist” https://sunypress.edu/Books/B/Between-Conviction-and-Uncertainty2 I do think we need to understand that we need to realize that we deal with uncertainty. Remember that it is not ”black or white” but complex with different degrees of certainty. Something that our (but soon AI?) PC can’t do, but we’ve developed over the course of evolution!
My own way to deal with uncertainty is based on George Kelly´s ”personal Construct Theory 1955 – se below
HYptel english 1987