Cargando…
Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis
BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare patients’ and physicians’ safety reporting using data from large acupuncture trials (44,818 patients) and to determine associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions. METHODS: Six pragmatic randomized trials with an additional non-rand...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6704486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31438954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2638-x |
_version_ | 1783445509821693952 |
---|---|
author | Schwaneberg, Thea Witt, Claudia M. Roll, Stephanie Pach, Daniel |
author_facet | Schwaneberg, Thea Witt, Claudia M. Roll, Stephanie Pach, Daniel |
author_sort | Schwaneberg, Thea |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare patients’ and physicians’ safety reporting using data from large acupuncture trials (44,818 patients) and to determine associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions. METHODS: Six pragmatic randomized trials with an additional non-randomized study arm that included those patients who refused randomization were evaluated. Patients received acupuncture treatment for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, chronic neck pain, chronic low back pain, chronic headache, dysmenorrhea, or allergic rhinitis or asthma. Safety outcomes were evaluated by questionnaires from both the physicians and the patients. To determine level of agreement between physicians and patients on the prevalence of adverse reactions, Cohen’s kappa was used. With multilevel models associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions were assessed. RESULTS: Patients reported on average three times more adverse reactions than the study physicians: for bleeding/haematoma, 6.7% of patients (n = 2458) vs. 0.6% of physicians (n = 255) and for pain, 1.7% of patients (n = 636) vs. 0.5% of physicians (n = 207). We found only minor agreements between patients and physicians (maximum Cohen’s kappa: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [0.49;0.51] for depressive mood). Being a female and participation in the randomization were associated with higher odds of reporting an adverse reaction. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, patients’ and physicians’ reports on adverse reactions of acupuncture differed substantially, possibly due to differences in patients’ and physicians’ questionnaires and definitions. For the assessment of safety, we strongly support the inclusion of patients’ and physicians’ reports while ensuring standardization of data collection and definitions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-019-2638-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6704486 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67044862019-08-22 Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis Schwaneberg, Thea Witt, Claudia M. Roll, Stephanie Pach, Daniel BMC Complement Altern Med Research Article BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare patients’ and physicians’ safety reporting using data from large acupuncture trials (44,818 patients) and to determine associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions. METHODS: Six pragmatic randomized trials with an additional non-randomized study arm that included those patients who refused randomization were evaluated. Patients received acupuncture treatment for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, chronic neck pain, chronic low back pain, chronic headache, dysmenorrhea, or allergic rhinitis or asthma. Safety outcomes were evaluated by questionnaires from both the physicians and the patients. To determine level of agreement between physicians and patients on the prevalence of adverse reactions, Cohen’s kappa was used. With multilevel models associations between patient characteristics and reporting of adverse reactions were assessed. RESULTS: Patients reported on average three times more adverse reactions than the study physicians: for bleeding/haematoma, 6.7% of patients (n = 2458) vs. 0.6% of physicians (n = 255) and for pain, 1.7% of patients (n = 636) vs. 0.5% of physicians (n = 207). We found only minor agreements between patients and physicians (maximum Cohen’s kappa: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [0.49;0.51] for depressive mood). Being a female and participation in the randomization were associated with higher odds of reporting an adverse reaction. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, patients’ and physicians’ reports on adverse reactions of acupuncture differed substantially, possibly due to differences in patients’ and physicians’ questionnaires and definitions. For the assessment of safety, we strongly support the inclusion of patients’ and physicians’ reports while ensuring standardization of data collection and definitions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-019-2638-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6704486/ /pubmed/31438954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2638-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schwaneberg, Thea Witt, Claudia M. Roll, Stephanie Pach, Daniel Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
title | Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
title_full | Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
title_short | Comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
title_sort | comparing physicians’ and patients’ reporting on adverse reactions in randomized trials on acupuncture—a secondary data analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6704486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31438954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2638-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schwanebergthea comparingphysiciansandpatientsreportingonadversereactionsinrandomizedtrialsonacupunctureasecondarydataanalysis AT wittclaudiam comparingphysiciansandpatientsreportingonadversereactionsinrandomizedtrialsonacupunctureasecondarydataanalysis AT rollstephanie comparingphysiciansandpatientsreportingonadversereactionsinrandomizedtrialsonacupunctureasecondarydataanalysis AT pachdaniel comparingphysiciansandpatientsreportingonadversereactionsinrandomizedtrialsonacupunctureasecondarydataanalysis |