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 4
Results of the first round of expert questionnaire survey.
Classification
Evaluation indicator
Importance score
Consensus (%)
Result
Modification
Evidence’s source (ancient book)
(1) Quantity of being cited (A1)
4.54
100.00
Included
No
(2) Quantity of citing others (A2)
3.26
74.29
Deleted
(3) Book written time (A3)
2.91
65.71
Deleted
(4) Quantity of version (A4)
3.40
77.14
Included
No
(5) Source of ancient books (A5)
4.34
94.29
Included
Popularity of the ancient books
Evidence of knowledge
(1) Is the description of disease treatment comprehensive? (A6)
3.97
85.71
Included
No
(2) Are they extensively studied in other ancient medical books of knowledge? (A7)
3.71
85.71
Included
No
(3) Is it widely used in medical cases and notes? (A8)
3.69
80.00
Included
No
(4) Is it widely used in modern literature? (A9)
3.43
77.14
Included
No
Evidence of case
(1) Is the patient's personal information comprehensive? (A10)
2.86
65.71
Deleted
(2) Is diagnosis and treatment information comprehensive? (A11)
4.37
91.43
Included
No
(3) Is the number of visits for disease treatment reported? (A12)
3.83
85.71
Included
No
(4) Is efficacy reported? (A13)
4.37
91.43
Included
No
(5) Is follow-up information reported? (A14)
2.94
65.71
Deleted
(6) Sample size of treatment? (A15)
2.97
65.71
Deleted
(7) Notes or explanation on diagnosis and treatment gist and thinking? (A16)
