MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982266450 · doi:10.1186/s12906-019-2683-5

Application evaluation of clinical practice guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine: a clinical analysis based on the analytic hierarchy process

2019· article· en· W2982266450 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huayang Cai, Hui Li, Huizhen Zeng, Danping Xu, Wenwei Ouyang, LV Ai-ping

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangdong Science and Technology DepartmentGuangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine
KeywordsMedicineTraditional Chinese medicineClinical PracticeAnalytic hierarchy processConsistency (knowledge bases)AnginaGuidelineAlternative medicineTraditional medicinePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) play an important role in clinical practice, and they require appropriate evaluation, especially in application. This study explores the application evaluation method of CPGs for Traditional Chinese Medicines (TCM). It uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and clinical cases to evaluate the consistency between CPGs of TCM and clinical practice. METHODS: To evaluate the consistency between CPGs of TCM and clinical cases, a 3-level AHP construction was built. Weightings were calculated by collecting questionnaires according to AHP theory. To test the evaluation system, a retrospective study was performed. The study evaluated the China Association of Chinese Medicine's Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Common Internal Diseases in Chinese Medicine Diseases of Modern Medicine (CPGs of DTCID) (ZYYXH/T50-135-2008). A total of 150 cases were involved. The evaluation system was used to assess the consistency between CPGs of DTCID and clinical cases of angina pectoris. RESULTS: The results showed that the overall consistency between CPGs of DTCID and the 150 cases was 42.32 ± 6.94%, ranging from 35.21 to 63.37%. The overall consistency was not affected by age, gender, type of angina pectoris, condition of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or angina classification as determined by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society. The consistencies of each index were as follows: Diagnosis of TCM, 100%; Diagnosis of Western medicine, 100%; Syndrome classification, 38.25 ± 4.40%; Syndrome key point, 34.17 ± 8.15%; TCM Decoction, 31.08 ± 23.64%; TCM particular treatment, 7.92 ± 19.13%; and Recuperation and prevention, 0. The most frequent syndromes were qi-deficiency, phlegm and blood stasis (n = 124) (82.7%). The overall consistency of qi-deficiency, turbid phlegm and blood stasis was lower than the overall consistency of the group without that syndrome. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). 42 cases (28%) applied the TCM decoction recommended by CPGs of DTCID. Of these, Gualouxiebaibanxia decoction was applied in 34 cases. Wendan decoction, the most frequently used, was applied in 64 cases (42.7%). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the AHP system can perform quantitative evaluation of consistency between TCM CPG and clinical practice. It also found the factors affecting the application of TCM CPGs and might indicate the need for revisions of CPGs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.719
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.069 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207