ArticleHeliyon2024
Conducting and reporting the Delphi method in traditional Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis research: A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Delphi Study on the Development of a Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndrome-Differentiation Nursing Framework for Patients with Cirrhotic Ascites.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Traditional Chinese medicine nursing competency and its correlates among clinical nurses in Guangyuan City, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Background: The Delphi method has been extensively used to reach a consensus in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome diagnosis research when subjective judgment is not uniform and objective evidence is lacking. The conduct and reporting of the Delphi method in TCM syndrome diagnosis research have never been critiqued. Our study aims to explore the consistency of using this technique and assess the reporting quality. Methods: A cross-sectional study was employed to scope articles reporting the conduct of the Delphi method in TCM syndrome diagnosis research. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and SinoMed databases with the restriction of Chinese and English language from their inception to March 25, 2023. A standardized extraction form was designed to collect demographics and methodological processes reflecting the rigor and transparency in TCM syndrome diagnosis research. Results: A total of 1832 studies were screened, and 50 were included. The median number of panels was 30 (IQR 20-34.5) and only 12 (24.0 %) studies were with a heterogeneous sample of panels. Two rounds was most common (37/50; 74.0 %), followed by three (7/50; 14.0 %), and only 13 (26.0 %) studies determined the number of rounds a priori. The reporting quality varied, with 18.0 % (9/50) reporting anonymity, 30.0 % (15/50) describing the controlled feedback, 20.0 % (10/50) reporting the procedure duration (7.14 ± 3.29 months) and 26.0 % (13/50) predefining the consensus. Conclusion: The Delphi method is inconsistently conducted and nontransparently reported in TCM syndrome diagnosis research. Standardized criteria are urgently needed for best practices in future research.
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.