Zhang Lei, Guo Xinfeng, Yang Shuo, Liu Sihong, Li Hongtao, Chen Guangkun, Gao Hongjie, Zhang Huamin, Tong Lin
Institute of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No. 16, Dongzhimen South Alley, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100700, China.
The Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 111, Dade Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022 Mar 1;2022:3674663. doi: 10.1155/2022/3674663. eCollection 2022.
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.
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.
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 ( < 0.05) and 0.081 ( < 0.05), respectively.
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.
本研究旨在制定一种对中医古籍防治证据进行评价和分级的量表,以期为中医临床工作者提供参考,支持中医循证实践指南的编撰或修订,提高中医古籍循证研究水平,补充循证中医古籍的发展。
采用德尔菲法对40名相关领域专家进行咨询。运用Excel 2016和SPSS 21.0分析积极系数、权威系数、集中程度、协调程度和专家共识程度。
在第一轮问卷中,从三个方面共制定了17项评价指标:删除5项,根据专家意见修改1项,未增加其他指标。此外,根据专家咨询结果制定了量化标准、权重赋值和分级标准。第一轮和第二轮问卷专家的积极系数分别为87.5%和82.9%。权威系数为0.835(>0.7)。第一轮和第二轮的变异系数分别为0.14~0.29和0.09~0.27。第一轮和第二轮的肯德尔和谐系数分别为0.135(<0.05)和0.081(<0.05)。
所制定量表的评价指标和量化参考值符合中医古籍防治证据的特点。可为中医古籍证据的评价和分级提供有益的探索工具。