Revision of the curative effect evaluation part of Criteria for Diagnosis and Treatment of Diseases in Traditional Chinese Medicine - Edema based on delphi method
10.3760/cma.j.cn115398-20230417-00231
- VernacularTitle:基于德尔菲法的《中医病证诊断疗效标准》中“水肿”疗效评定部分的修订
- Author:
Xinxin MAO
1
;
Qingqiao SONG
;
Yumeng LI
;
Huaqin WU
;
Haoran ZHENG
;
Bingxuan ZHANG
Author Information
1. 中国中医科学院广安门医院综合科，北京 100053
- Keywords:
Edema;
Traditional Chinese Medicine;
Curative effect evaluation;
Delphi method;
Literature researches
- From:
International Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine
2024;46(10):1264-1270
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Based on literature research and Delphi method, the curative effect evaluation criteria of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) edema were revised, in order to promote the standardization construction of the curative effect evaluation of edema and strengthen the research on the revision technology of TCM standards. From January 1, 1994 to July 1, 2021, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (Chongqing VIP), Chinese Academic Periodical Database (Wanfang Data) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed) were searched, and 221 articles were included. Then the questionnaire item pool was constructed after extracting the contents of the articles. Delphi method was used to conduct two rounds of expert questionnaire survey. And then the concentration degree and coordination degree of expert opinions were counted and analyzed to screen out the content to be revised and the indicators to be included in the revised version, so as to form the revised version of curative effect evaluation criteria of edema. A total of 32 experts participated in this study, and the positive coefficient of experts in the first round was 84.21%, and the positive coefficient of experts in the second round was 78.13%. The mean value ( Xˉ), full score ratio, rank sum, coefficient of variation ( CV), Kendall's coefficient of concordace (Kendall's W) were used to select the questionnaire items. Kendall's W of the second round of expert questionnaire survey was 0.368, P=0.000, higher than that of the first round, and 11 items were finally included in the curative effect evaluation. The CV of the included items in the second round of the questionnaire is lower than that in the first round, and Kendall's W was higher than that in the first round, and the expert opinions tend to be unified. Consensus was reached after the expert discussion meeting, and the revised version of curative effect evaluation criteria of edema has been preliminarily formed.
