As we have mentioned before, dry syndrome “appears to be the dryness of grass and trees” and “the substance is the dryness of land”. But “dry grass” does not necessarily mean “dry land”. Therefore, to diagnose this disease, it is necessary to look at both “whether the grass is dry” and “whether the land is dry”, and more importantly, “the degree of dryness of the land” (because it is directly related to the treatment plan). (because it is directly related to the treatment plan). Is there dryness in the human body and to what extent? This requires careful work in many areas. In addition to careful and systematic questioning to understand all aspects of the disease, various detailed examinations/lab tests are reasonably used to understand the function of the mouth, salivary glands and lip glands, the secretion function of the eyes and lacrimal glands, the degree of immune disorders in the body, the functional status of various immune cells (whether there are any “rebellions”), and the presence of autoantibodies (various rebellions). ), the presence of autoantibodies (various tools of sabotage), the function of internal organs (such as liver, kidneys, lungs, etc.), the presence of osteoporosis, the presence of the first signs of tumors, and so on. Based on the above mentioned work, we can make a diagnosis of the disease and determine the extent, severity and priority of the lesions, and determine the treatment plan accordingly. In fact, because the disease manifestations vary greatly from patient to patient, this poses certain difficulties in diagnosis. In the past four decades, scholars at home and abroad have introduced many “diagnostic criteria”, among which the diagnostic criteria proposed by WHO in 2002 are particularly detailed, while the criteria proposed by ACR in 2012 are more concise. See the following chart for details. However, it should be noted that any standard is rigid and artificially defined. Setting these bars is by no means foolproof in practice; “you can’t use the same yardstick for everyone.” In many early cases, atypical cases, or special cases, dogmatic application of criteria often results in missed diagnoses, or “wronging the good guys.