A Systematic Review of Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndrome Efficacy Evaluation Scales Based on the COSMIN Guidelines
10.13288/j.11-2166/r.2026.04.013
- VernacularTitle:基于COSMIN指南对中医证候疗效评价量表的系统评价
- Author:
Kailin SU
1
;
Zhenzhen FENG
1
;
Jiajia WANG
1
;
Lu WANG
1
;
Guixiang ZHAO
1
;
Jiansheng LI
1
Author Information
1. The First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine，Zhengzhou，450003
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
traditional Chinese medicine syndromes;
efficacy evaluation;
scales;
measurement properties;
consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments guidelines;
systematic review
- From:
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine
2026;67(4):416-424
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） syndrome efficacy evaluation scales， and to provide evidence-based references for selecting high-quality assessment tools in TCM clinical practice. MethodsChina National Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI）， Wanfang Data， VIP Database， Chinese Biomedical Literature Database （CBM）， PubMed， the Cochrane Library， Embase， and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2， 2025， for studies evaluating the measurement properties of TCM syndrome efficacy evaluation scales. Data were extracted， and the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included scales were assessed according to the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments （COSMIN）. Recommendation levels were formulated based on the grading of evidence. ResultsA total of 46 studies were included， involving 22 generic syndrome efficacy evaluation scales and 24 disease-specific syndrome efficacy evaluation scales. None of the scales reported cross-cultural validity or measurement error. According to the recommendation grades， 2 scales met Grade A recommendations and are suggested for clinical use； 38 scales were classified as Grade B， indicating potential applicability but requiring further validation； and 6 scales were classified as Grade C， suggesting the need for further refinement. ConclusionExisting TCM syndrome efficacy evaluation scales exhibit substantial variability in methodological quality， incomplete reporting of measurement properties， and insufficient attention to scale revision. Future efforts should emphasize standardized design in the development of TCM syndrome scales， strengthen validation procedures for key measurement properties， and prioritize dynamic revision of scales， thereby providing high-quality tools to support the precise evaluation of syndrome efficacy.
