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
Table 2
Experts’ concentration level and variation coefficient results of the first round.
Classification
Evaluation indicator
Full mark ratio
Arithmetic mean
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
First round
Second round
First round
Second round
First round
Second round
First round
Second round
Evidence’s source (ancient book)
(1) Quantity of being cited (A1)
0.68
0.86
4.54
2.72
0.92
0.70
0.20
0.26
(2) Quantity of citing others (A2)
0.29
0.69
3.86
2.52
1.03
0.69
0.27
0.27
(3) Book written time (A3)
0.31
0.90
3.86
2.90
1.12
0.31
0.29
0.11
(4) Quantity of version (A4)
0.30
0.86
3.97
2.83
1.04
0.47
0.26
0.17
(5) Source of ancient books (A5)
0.57
0.79
4.51
2.72
0.61
0.59
0.14
0.22
Evidence of knowledge
(1) Is the description of disease treatment comprehensive? (A6)
0.54
0.83
4.40
2.76
0.74
0.58
0.17
0.21
(2) Are they extensively studied in other ancient medical books of knowledge? (A7)
0.29
0.72
4.14
2.66
0.65
0.61
0.16
0.23
(3) Is it widely used in medical cases and notes? (A8)
0.49
0.90
4.29
2.93
0.79
0.26
0.18
0.09
(4) Is it widely used in modern literature? (A9)
0.34
0.86
4.09
2.86
0.82
0.35
0.20
0.12
Evidence of case
(1) Is the patient's personal information comprehensive? (A10)
0.23
0.76
3.83
2.72
0.86
0.53
0.22
0.19
(2) Is diagnosis and treatment information comprehensive? (A11)
0.71
0.86
4.63
2.86
0.65
0.44
0.14
0.15
(3) Is the number of visits for disease treatment reported? (A12)
0.40
0.79
4.17
2.76
0.89
0.51
0.21
0.19
(4) Is efficacy reported? (A13)
0.71
0.86
4.54
2.72
0.78
0.70
0.17
0.26
(5) Is follow-up information reported? (A14)
0.31
0.69
3.91
2.52
0.98
0.69
0.25
0.27
(6) Sample size of treatment? (A15)
0.34
0.90
3.89
2.90
1.02
0.31
0.26
0.11
(7) Notes or explanation on diagnosis and treatment gist and thinking? (A16)
