MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407163003 · doi:10.2196/63481

Core Outcome Set Development for Tension-Type Headache Treatment Using Traditional Chinese Medicine: Protocol for a Delphi Consensus Study

2025· article· en· W4407163003 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guo-Jing Fu, Yunmeng Chen, Xiao Liang, Chun-Li Guo, Xueming Fan, Gong Xiao, Jing Teng, Xing Liao, Jingjing Wei, Zhang Yunling

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsDelphi methodProtocol (science)MedicineMEDLINEData extractionAlternative medicineThematic analysisComparabilityFamily medicineQualitative researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of headache and the second most common health-related complaint among children and adults. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) offers unique therapeutic benefits in treating TTH. However, the lack of standardized evidence-such as inconsistencies in outcome selection and reporting in clinical studies, a lack of consensus on outcomes and measures, high risks of selective reporting bias, and missing data-has limited the development of robust evidence supporting the efficacy of TCM in treating TTH. Therefore, establishing a core outcome set (COS) is crucial for standardizing TCM clinical studies for TTH, thereby enhancing the quality and comparability of research findings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a COS for future clinical studies on the treatment of TTH with TCM. METHODS: The COS will be developed through the following 3 stages. First, systematic reviews and semistructured interviews will be conducted to identify potential essential outcomes, which will be evaluated by the steering committee to finalize a preliminary list of outcomes. Data will be processed using thematic analysis to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant outcomes. Second, a 2-round Delphi survey will be conducted, inviting stakeholders, including health care experts and patients with tension-type headaches, to determine the importance of each outcome. Statistical analysis will be used to assess the level of consensus and prioritize outcomes based on predefined criteria. Third, a face-to-face consensus meeting will be held to finalize the COS and recommend measurement times for each outcome. Key outcomes will be interpreted based on their clinical relevance and feasibility of measurement, ensuring the COS is comprehensive and applicable in clinical settings. RESULTS: The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, with the review commencing on October 1, 2024, and anticipated results by November 15, 2024. The systematic reviews will be finalized, followed by the Delphi survey and consensus conference in late 2024 and early 2025. The COS findings will be reported per COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guidelines, published in an international journal, presented at conferences, and disseminated to participants for clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: This study is necessary as developing a COS for future TCM clinical studies in the treatment of TTH can maximize the value of data from individual trials and provide high-quality research evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative 1473; https://tinyurl.com/3ts62s2p. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/63481.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.906
GPT teacher head0.740
Teacher spread0.166 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207