Expert Consensus of Syndrome Differentiation for Phlegm Turbidity Syndrome for Coronary Heart Disease

• Main Authors: Xin-lin Chen, Xiao-qi Liu, Rong Xie, Dan-hong Peng, Yan-ping Wang, Xuan Zhou, Bin Wang, Chuan-wei Mo, Qian Xu, Xiantao Li
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hindawi Limited 2018-01-01
• Series: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/8184673

Objective. The purpose of the study was to form a questionnaire of expert consensus about phlegm turbidity syndrome of coronary heart disease (CHD) using literature method and Delphi method, which could provide the objective evidences for the clinical diagnosis and treatment for CHD. Method. The CBM, CNKI, VIP, and PubMed were searched. The articles about phlegm turbidity syndrome for CHD with the definite related four diagnostic data were included. Based on the results of the literature method, two rounds of Delphi method were conducted. The TCM experts about CHD were enrolled. Concentration and coordination index of the experts were used to select the items. Results. Literature method: A total of 118 articles were included. Greasy fur, slippery pulse, chest fullness or chest pain, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, vertigo, excessive phlegm, abdominal fullness, head heaviness, obesity, stringy pulse, physical heaviness, soft pulse, somnolence, fatigue, and pale tongue (16 items) had the relatively high proportion, and they were eligible for Delphi process. Delphi method: A total of 93 experts (22 for the first round, 71 for the second round) were included. The reliability of the items was 0.885 for all the experts. The 16 items were not significantly different between the two rounds (P>0.05). According to the results of mean, frequency, sum of ranks and coefficient of variation, the item of nausea and vomiting, somnolence, pale tongue, and soft pulse were deleted. Conclusions. The questionnaire of phlegm turbidity syndrome of CHD was established, with good reliability. The sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire are still necessary to further validate for clinical or scientific use.