Scientific Evaluation of TCM Clinical Outcomes Rating Scale for Heart Failure Based on Patients Report / 中国中西医结合杂志

ABSTRACT

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical outcomes rating scale for heart failure (HF) based on patients' report.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>TCM clinical outcomes rating scale for HF (TCM-HF-PRO) were evaluated based on 340 HF patients' report from multiple centers. The completion of the investigation was recorded. Cronbach's α coefficient and split-half reliability were used for reliability analysis, and factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the rating scale. Pearson correlation analysis was then used for criterion validity analysis. Discriminant analysis was used to assess the responsiveness of the scale. All 340 HF patients having complete TCM-HF-PRO data were assigned to the treatment group and the control group by central randomization. The total TCM-HF-PRO scores of the two groups were compared using paired t-test to reflect the longitude responsiveness of the scale before treatment and at week 2 after treatment.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) The recycling rate of the scale was 100.0%. One of them was not filled completely, which was rejected thereby. So the completion rate was 99.7%. The completion time for TCM-HF-PRO scale ranged 15 to 25 min. (2) The Cronbach's α coefficient of rating scale was 0.903, split-half reliability was 0.844 and 0.849. (3) Confirmatory factor analysis showed that 7 factors and items formed according to maximum load factor basically coincided with the construct of the rating scale, 7 factors accumulated contribution rate was 43.8%. TCM clinical outcomes rating scale for HF based on patients' report was relatively better correlated with the Minnesota living with HF questionnaire (r = 0.726, P < 0.01). (4) Discriminant analysis showed that the rating scale correctly classified more than 78.8% of case studies having confirmed initial differential diagnosis by experts. The total scale of the rating scale decreased more in the two group after treatment, with significant difference as compared with before treatment (P < 0.01.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>TCM clinical outcomes rating scale for HF based on patients' report had good reliability, validity and responsiveness, hence it could be used to assess clinical efficacy for HF patients.</p>