■临床针灸决策高度依赖于操作者,需要医患互动。德尔菲法允许在临床决策中考虑专家经验和患者偏好等主观因素,特别适用于针灸。目前,德尔菲法被广泛用于支持针灸临床决策。因此,在进行临床决策时,有必要提供高质量和完整的Delphi过程描述。本研究旨在评价针灸德尔菲过程的质量,促进其标准化和严谨性,以便进一步制定针灸临床决策。
■根据进行和报告Delphi研究(CREDES)的标准,系统地搜索了来自六个数据库的文章,以评估Delphi共识过程的质量。根据每个项目的百分比进行描述性统计和分析。由两名独立研究人员使用五个分数的李克特量表来评估CREDES中四个领域以及每个项目的报告质量。结合ICC值评估一致性。
■根据资格标准,共纳入了37篇合格文章。至于低报告率,“外部验证”项目报告为最低阳性率,为32.43%,“预防偏倚”项目为48.65%。“结论的充分性”项目,“定义和达成共识”,和“限制讨论”报告的阳性率为62.16%,64.86%,和单独67.57%。从最高到最低,基于CREDES的四个域的平均分数为,分别,如下:规划设计(68.75%),报告(66.07%),选择德尔菲技术的理由(65.54%),研究行为(45.10%)。
■目前针灸德尔菲共识过程的报告质量是可以接受的,但是某些项目的报告率仍然很低。进一步标准化,包括更清晰的检查表或研究报告,应发展和加强以指导针灸临床决策。
UNASSIGNED: Clinical acupuncture decisions are highly operator-dependent and require physician-patient interactions. The Delphi method allows subjective factors such as expert experience and preference of patients to be taken into account in clinical decision making, which is particularly applicable to acupuncture. Currently, the Delphi method is widely used to support clinical decisions in acupuncture. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and complete descriptions of the Delphi process when making clinical decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of the Delphi process in acupuncture, facilitate its standardization and rigor for further clinical decision making in acupuncture.
UNASSIGNED: Articles sourced from six databases were searched systematically to assess the quality of the Delphi
consensus process based on the standards for conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES). Descriptive statistics and analysis were presented according to the percentage of each item. Five-score Likert scale was used to evaluate the reporting quality of four domains as well as each item in CREDES by two independent researchers, combined with ICC-value to assess the consistency.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 37 qualified articles were included according to eligibility criteria. As for the low reporting rate, the item \"External validation\" was reported as the lowest positive rate at 32.43% and the item \"Prevention of bias\" was 48.65%. The item \"Adequacy of conclusions\", \"Definition and attainment of
consensus\", and \"Discussion of limitations\" were reported at a positive ratio of 62.16%, 64.86%, and 67.57% individually. The average scores of the four domains based on CREDES from highest to lowest were, respectively, as follows: planning and design (68.75%), reporting (66.07%), rationale for the choice of the Delphi technique (65.54%), study conduct (45.10%).
UNASSIGNED: The reporting quality of the Delphi
consensus process in acupuncture is acceptable currently, but the reporting rate on some items is still low. Further standardization, including either clearer checklists or study reports, should be developed and strengthened to guide clinical decisions in acupuncture.