ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Ranking clinical indicators for stroke pattern identification according to clinical importance in traditional Korean medicine.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differences in the value that individual clinicians place on each clinical indicator, when performing pattern identification, can be a significant obstacle in achieving accurate and consistent pattern identification. In this study, we aimed to identify and rank the importance of clinical indicators that correspond to each pattern. During the fundamental study to standardize and objectify the identification of patterns in traditional Korean medicine (TKM) treatment for stroke (the SOPI-Stroke project), we developed the Third Standardization for Pattern Identification (K-SPI-Stroke-III), which includes 44 clinical indicators that belong to one of the four patterns (Dampness-Phlegm, Fire-Heat, Qi deficiency, and Yin deficiency). Between September 2006 and December 2010, a total of 105 TKM doctors from 11 hospitals performed four examinations on 4,012 subjects based on the clinical indicators in the K-SPI-Stroke-III, and they were asked to leave a special mark on the indicators they thought were important, regardless of the number of the indicators. A total of 1,018 patients were included in the study. Among the 44 clinical indicators of the K-SPI-Stroke-III, four indicators were highly significant in differentiating between patterns and the frequency within a pattern. In contrast, another seven indicators were almost useless. Meanwhile, six confounding indicators had outlying values for differentiating between patterns and the frequency within a pattern. In conclusion, the four significant indicators should be actively considered when identifying patterns for strokes in clinical practice. Regarding the six confounding indicators, a further study should be conducted to modify some parts of the current K-SPI-Stroke-III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25664017PMC4307464What 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.