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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwaneberg, Thea, Witt, Claudia M., Roll, Stephanie, Pach, Daniel
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