ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Improving Delphi Process in Acupuncture Decision Making: Overall Descriptions and Quality Assessment of Delphi Reports.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Crosstalk in Multidisciplinary Approaches for Evidence-Based Medicine.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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%). Conclusion: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.