ArticleChinese journal of integrative medicine2013
Feasibility analysis of the value of Q method in the classification and understanding of expert experience.
Article in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Q method, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, refers to the qualitative analysis of Q-sorts based on quantitative techniques. It is used to research individual subjective experience, analyzing consensus and divergence to identify and categorize subjects' viewpoints. The sorting process is completely performed by the subjects, independent of study researchers. The Q method in medical research has been applied in many fields, including nursing care, clinical studies, doctor and patient's perceptions, health evaluation and decision making. The authors used the Q method to research Chinese medicine (CM) group decision making, exploring its practical feasibility in this important field. Four primary domains are addressed: (1) integration of expert opinion; (2) expert classification; (3) ascertaining the entire viewpoint orientation of a certain type of expert; and (4) comparison of expert opinion using an additional perspective. The essence of the Q method caters to the CM thinking model and should be introduced into CM and explored more deeply.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23207745What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.