ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Development of a Nursing Quality Evaluation Indicator System for Lung Cancer in Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on the Donabedian Model: A Delphi Study.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, no unified quality evaluation standard exists specifically for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) nursing in lung cancer in China, and existing indicators do not capture TCM's unique features. To address this gap, we aimed to construct a preliminary scientific and disease specific quality evaluation framework for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) nursing in lung cancer patients based on expert consensus, which can serve as a theoretical foundation for standardized management and future empirical validation. Methods: Guided by Donabedian's structure process outcome model, we developed an initial indicator pool through a systematic literature review and semi structured interviews. A three round Delphi consultation was conducted with 17 national experts. Indicators were screened using importance/feasibility scores, coefficients of variation, and full-score rates. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to assign weights. No clinical validation has been performed at this stage. Results: All three rounds achieved a response rate of 100%. The expert authority coefficients increased from 0.853 to 0.894, and Kendall's W reached 0.304 (all Conclusion: We developed a consensus‑based quality evaluation framework for TCM nursing in lung cancer that demonstrated good content validity and expert agreement. However, these findings are based solely on expert opinion; their predictive validity, clinical feasibility, and impact on patient outcomes require prospective multicenter validation before they can be recommended for routine practice. This framework provides a theoretical reference for future studies.
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.