ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
Application of the Delphi Method in the Construction of an Evaluating and Grading Scale for Evidence of Disease Prevention and Treatment in Ancient Books of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Traditional Chinese medicine nursing competency and its correlates among clinical nurses in Guangyuan City, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Development of an Evaluation Indicator System for Discharge Preparation Services for First-Time Insulin Injection Patients Based on the Delphi Method.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals in a comprehensive tertiary hospital regarding traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of influenza.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a Complex Intervention for the Management of Urinary Incontinence Among Community-Dwelling Older Women.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Construction of an ethical competency evaluation system for clinical physicians in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Construction of an Index System of the Biosafety Incident Response Capability for Nursing Staff: A Delphi Study.Nursing open · 2025Article
- Development of an evaluation list for older adult community-based rehabilitation needs through a Delphi method.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development of the assessment standards of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Geriatric Core Set through a modified Delphi method.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop a scale for evaluating and grading the evidence of prevention and treatment in ancient books of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), in view of providing a reference for TCM clinicians, supporting the compilation or revision of evidence-based practice guidelines for TCM, improving the level of evidence-based research on ancient TCM books, and supplementing the development of evidence-based ancient TCM books. Methods: The Delphi method was used for consultation among 40 experts in relevant fields. Excel 2016 and SPSS 21.0 were used to analyze the positive coefficient, authority coefficient, degree of concentration, degree of coordination, and degree of expert consensus. Results: In the first round of the questionnaire, a total of 17 evaluation indexes were formulated in three aspects: 5 were deleted, 1 was modified according to the expert opinions, and no additional index was added. In addition, quantitative standards, weight assignment, and grading standards were developed according to the findings of the expert consultation. The positive coefficients of experts in the first and second rounds of questionnaires were 87.5% and 82.9%, respectively. The authority coefficient was 0.835 (>0.7). The coefficient of variation of the first and second rounds were 0.14∼0.29 and 0.09∼0.27, respectively. Kendall's coefficient of concordance of the first and second rounds were 0.135 ( Conclusion: The evaluation indexes and quantitative reference values of the developed scale conform to the characteristics of prevention and treatment evidence in ancient TCM books. It can provide a useful exploration tool for the evaluation and grading of evidences in TCM ancient books.
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.