《中医儿科病证诊断疗效标准·哮喘(修订)》框架意见专家调查问卷结果分析

Analysis of the Results of Expert Questionnaire on Framework of Criteria of Diagnosis and Therapeutic Effect of Diseases and Syndromes of Childhood Asthma in Traditional Chinese Medicine (Revision)

[目的]筛选和评价中医儿科专家对《中医儿科病证诊断疗效标准·哮喘(修订)》框架意见的集中程度与协调程度,为该标准的修订奠定基础。[方法]在文献检索及文献总结的基础上,采用德尔菲法(Delphi)制定并完成2轮专家调查问卷。采用均数、等级和、不重要百分比评价专家意见集中程度,采用变异系数评价专家意见协调程度。[结果]经过2轮问卷调查,专家对哮喘的诊断、迁延期及缓解期证型、临床痊愈及临床控制、证候疗效评价及主症量表评分法等指标意见集中程度较高,协调度好;对于发作期具体证型名称的选定意见一致性较差;疾病疗效评价中临床缓解的评价时间及评价效果的选择存在一定的争议。[结论]本次调查问卷专家积极系数较高,地域分布广,有良好的代表性,《中医儿科病证诊断疗效标准·哮喘(修订)》框架及相关条目基本得到专家认可,发作期具体证型及疗效评价中临床缓解涉及条目有待进一步商榷。

[Objective]To screen and evaluate the centralization and coordination degree of Chinese pediatric experts’ opinions on the draft framework of"Criteria of Diagnosis and Therapeutic Effect of Diseases and Syndromes of Childhood Asthma in Traditional Chinese Medicine(Revision)",so as to lay a foundation for the revision of this standard.[Methods]On the basis of literature retrieval and literature summary,two rounds of expert questionnaires were formulated and completed by Delphi method.Means,ranks and unimportant percentages were used to evaluate the concentration degree of experts’ opinions,and coefficient of variation was used to evaluate the coordination degree of expert opinions.[Results] After two rounds of questionnaires,the experts’ opinions on most of the indicators were highly centralized and had good coordination;while the consistency of opinions on the choice of specific syndromes during the onset period was poor and there were some disputes about the evaluation time and effect of clinical remission in the evaluation of disease efficacy.[Conclusion]Experts’ positive coefficients were higher,their geographical distribution was wider,and they had good representativeness.The revised framework of the standard had been basically recognized by experts,and the items related to clinical remission in the specific syndromes and evaluation of therapeutic effects in attack period need further discussion.