Diagnostic Accuracy of Chinese Medicine Diagnosis Scale of Phlegm and Blood Stasis Syndrome in Coronary Heart Disease: A Study Protocol

Background Phlegm and blood stasis syndrome (PBSS) is one of the main syndromes in coronary heart disease (CHD). Syndromes of Chinese medicine (CM) are lack of quantitative and easy-implementation diagnosis standards. To quantify and standardize the diagnosis of PBSS, scales are usually applied. Obj...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Chinese journal of integrative medicine 2019-07, Vol.25 (7), p.515-520
Main Authors: Liu, Xiao-qi, Peng, Dan-hong, Wang, Yan-ping, Xie, Rong, Chen, Xin-lin, Yu, Chun-quan, Li, Xian-tao
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Coronary Disease - diagnosis
Humans
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Medicine, Chinese Traditional
Mucus - chemistry
Original Article
Syndrome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Phlegm and blood stasis syndrome (PBSS) is one of the main syndromes in coronary heart disease (CHD). Syndromes of Chinese medicine (CM) are lack of quantitative and easy-implementation diagnosis standards. To quantify and standardize the diagnosis of PBSS, scales are usually applied. Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CM diagnosis scale of PBSS in CHD. Methods Six hundred patients with stable angina pectoris of CHD, 300 in case group and 300 in control group, will be recruited from 5 hospitals across China. Diagnosis from 2 experts will be considered as the “gold standard”. The study design consists of 2 phases: pilot test is used to evaluate the reliability and validity, and diagnostic test is used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the scale, including sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Discussion This study will evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CM diagnosis scale of PBSS in CHD. The consensus of 2 experts may not be ideal as a “gold standard”, and itself still requires further study. (No. ChiCTR-OOC-15006599).
ISSN:1672-0415
1993-0402
DOI:10.1007/s11655-018-2793-9