Dataset Information

Acupuncture-related adverse events: systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective clinical studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Overview on risks of acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective studies.

Data sources

PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception date to 15 September 2019.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Prospective studies assessing AEs caused by needle acupuncture in humans as primary outcome published in English or German.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent researchers selected articles, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Overall risks and risks for different AE categories were obtained from random effects meta-analyses.

Main outcomes

Overall risk of minor AEs and serious adverse events (SAEs) per patients and per treatments.

Results

A total of 7679 publications were identified. Twenty-two articles reporting on 21 studies were included. Meta-analyses suggest at least one AE occurring in 9.31% (95% CI 5.10% to 14.62%, 11 studies) of patients undergoing an acupuncture series and in 7.57% (95% CI 1.43% to 17.95%, 5 studies) of treatments. Summary risk estimates for SAEs were 1.01 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.33, 11 studies) per 10 000 patients and 7.98 (95% CI 1.39 to 20.00, 14 studies) per one million treatments, for AEs requiring treatment 1.14 (95% CI 0.00 to 7.37, 8 studies) per 1000 patients. Heterogeneity was substantial (I² >80%). On average, 9.4 AEs occurred in 100 treatments. Half of the AEs were bleeding, pain or flare at the needle site that are argued to represent intended acupuncture reaction. AE definitions and assessments varied largely.

Conclusion

Acupuncture can be considered among the safer treatments in medicine. SAEs are rare, and the most common minor AEs are very mild. AEs requiring medical management are uncommon but necessitate medical competence to assure patient safety. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity call for standardised AE assessments tools, clear criteria for differentiating acupuncture-related AEs from therapeutically desired reactions, and identification of patient-related risk factors for AEs.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020151930.

SUBMITTER: Baumler P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8422480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is an extensive class of biologically and clinically heterogeneous diseases with dismal outcomes. The histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) romidepsin was approved for relapsed and refractory (R/R-PTCL) in 2011. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of romidepsin in PTCL. Methods: We searched for articles on the HDAC inhibitor romidepsin in the treatment of PTCL in Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. The methodology is further detailed in PROSPERO (CRD42020213651, CRD42020213553). The 2-year overall survival (OS), 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), and their corresponding to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured. Besides, corresponding 95% CIs were pooled for the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), duration of response (DoR), and risk of adverse events (AEs). Results: Eleven studies containing 388 patients were incorporated into the quantitative synthesis, of which R/R-PTCL patients were the dominant portion, accounting for 94.3% (366/388). For all studies, the CR rate was 20% (95% CI, 13-27%, random effects model), and the PR rate was 18% (95% CI, 12-25%, random effects model). The 2-year OS was 48% (95% CI, 38-59%, fixed effects model), and the 2-year PFS was 17% (95% CI, 13-21%, fixed effects model). There were no significant differences between romidepsin monotherapy and romidepsin plus additional drugs. Hematological toxicities, such as lymphopenia and granulocytopenia, remained the most continually happening grade 3 or higher AEs, accounting for 46 and 28%, respectively. None of the studies reported any drug-related mortality. Conclusions: Considering that most of the included patients had R/R-PTCL, the addition of romidepsin significantly enhance the efficacy. And AEs were tolerable as the grade 3/4 AEs in romidepsin monotherapy was 7% (95% CI, 6-8%). It is imperative to further expand the first-line application of romidepsin and carry out personalized therapy based on epigenomics, which will improve the survival of PTCL patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020213651 and https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020213553.

Project description:BackgroundsZero-events studies frequently occur in systematic reviews of adverse events, which consist of an important source of evidence. We aimed to examine how evidence of zero-events studies was utilized in the meta-analyses of systematic reviews of adverse events.MethodsWe conducted a survey of systematic reviews published in two periods: January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2008, to April 25, 2011. Databases were searched for systematic reviews that conducted at least one meta-analysis of any healthcare intervention and used adverse events as the exclusive outcome. An adverse event was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or subject in healthcare practice. We summarized the frequency of occurrence of zero-events studies in eligible systematic reviews and how these studies were dealt with in the meta-analyses of these systematic reviews.ResultsWe included 640 eligible systematic reviews. There were 406 (63.45%) systematic reviews involving zero-events studies in their meta-analyses, among which 389 (95.11%) involved single-arm-zero-events studies and 223 (54.93%) involved double-arm-zero-events studies. The majority (98.71%) of these systematic reviews incorporated single-arm-zero-events studies into the meta-analyses. On the other hand, the majority (76.23%) of them excluded double-arm-zero-events studies from the meta-analyses, of which the majority (87.06%) did not discuss the potential impact of excluding such studies. Systematic reviews published at present (2015-2020) tended to incorporate zero-events studies in meta-analyses than those published in the past (2008-2011), but the difference was not significant (proportion difference=-0.09, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.03, p = 0.12).ConclusionSystematic review authors routinely treated studies with zero-events in both arms as "non-informative" carriers and excluded them from their reviews. Whether studies with no events are "informative" or not largely depends on the methods and assumptions applied, thus sensitivity analyses using different methods should be considered in future meta-analyses.

Project description:BackgroundThe QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.ObjectivesTo evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.MethodsWe performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).ResultsOf 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were "protocol and registration", "risk of bias across studies", and "additional analyses" in both methods and results sections.ConclusionsSRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.