ArticleChinese journal of integrative medicine2017
Inter-observer reliability of indicators and decision of pattern identification using diagnostic flowchart with traditional Korean medicine.
Article in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2017. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the consistency of patterns and pattern identification (PI), and the improvement in the diagnosis of blood stasis after the standard operating procedures (SOPs) were enhanced by using a diagnostic flflowchart. Methods A total of 358 subjects who were admitted by the Jaseng Hospital of Korean Medicine between June 2013 and December 2014 were included in the study. Each patient was independently diagnosed by two experts from the same department. In 2014, the SOPs included the use of a diagnostic flflowchart for each indicator. Inter-observer consistency was assessed by simple percent agreement and by the kappa and AC1 statistics.
resultsThe improvements in inter-observer agreement for the indicators (for all patients) and PI were greater in 2014 than in 2013. In 2013, the j-value measure of agreement between the two experts ranged from "poor" (κ=-0.051) to "good" (κ=0.968). The AC1 measure of agreement between the experts was generally high for the indicators and ranged from-0.010 to 0.978. In most cases, agreement was considerably lower when it was assessed by the j-values compared with the AC1 values. In 2014, the j-value measure of agreement on the indicators (for the subjects) generally ranged from poor to good, with the values ranging from-0.007 to 0.994. Moreover, the AC1 measure of agreement between the experts was generally high for all of the indicators and ranged from "moderate" (AC1=0.408) to "excellent" (AC1=0.996).
conclusionsIn four examinations, there was moderate agreement between the clinicians on the PI indicators of blood stasis. To improve clinician consistency (e.g., in the diagnostic criteria used), it is necessary to analyse the reasons for inconsistency and to improve clinician training. (Trial registration No. KCT0000916).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.