Edmund C Ickert, David Griswold, Ken Learman, Chad Cook
{"title":"确定哪些与干针疗法相关的不良事件应纳入知情同意书:修改后的 e-Delphi 研究。","authors":"Edmund C Ickert, David Griswold, Ken Learman, Chad Cook","doi":"10.1080/09593985.2023.2208668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Dry needling (DN) uses a monofilament needle to reduce pain and is performed by various healthcare professions. Due to the invasive needle puncture, adverse events (AEs) have been associated with DN. It is unclear, which AEs should be included in a risk statement for Informed Consent (IC). The purpose of this study was to identify which AEs should be included in a risk statement for IC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A three-round e-Delphi study was undertaken using a panel of DN experts. Expert inclusion criteria included: (1) ≥5 years practice performing DN and one of the following secondary criteria: (A) certification in DN; (B) completion of a manual therapy fellowship that included DN training; or (C) ≥1 publication involving the use of DN. Participants rated their level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as either: 1) ≥80% agreement; or 2) ≥70% and <80% agreement with median ≥3, interquartile range ≤1, and standard deviation ≤1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 (28%) AEs achieved final consensus in Round 3 for inclusion on IC. Kendall's Coefficient (<i>w</i>) of agreement for Round 2 was 0.213 and improved to 0.349 after Round 3. Wilcoxon rank tests revealed statistically significant changes for 12 of the 50 AEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Consensus was attained for 14 AEs for inclusion on IC. The AEs identified can be used for the development of a shorter, more concise IC risk statement. A total of 93.6% of experts agreed on definitions for AE classification.</p>","PeriodicalId":48699,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying which adverse events associated with dry needling should be included for informed consent: A modified e-Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Edmund C Ickert, David Griswold, Ken Learman, Chad Cook\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09593985.2023.2208668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Dry needling (DN) uses a monofilament needle to reduce pain and is performed by various healthcare professions. Due to the invasive needle puncture, adverse events (AEs) have been associated with DN. It is unclear, which AEs should be included in a risk statement for Informed Consent (IC). The purpose of this study was to identify which AEs should be included in a risk statement for IC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A three-round e-Delphi study was undertaken using a panel of DN experts. Expert inclusion criteria included: (1) ≥5 years practice performing DN and one of the following secondary criteria: (A) certification in DN; (B) completion of a manual therapy fellowship that included DN training; or (C) ≥1 publication involving the use of DN. Participants rated their level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as either: 1) ≥80% agreement; or 2) ≥70% and <80% agreement with median ≥3, interquartile range ≤1, and standard deviation ≤1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 (28%) AEs achieved final consensus in Round 3 for inclusion on IC. Kendall's Coefficient (<i>w</i>) of agreement for Round 2 was 0.213 and improved to 0.349 after Round 3. Wilcoxon rank tests revealed statistically significant changes for 12 of the 50 AEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Consensus was attained for 14 AEs for inclusion on IC. The AEs identified can be used for the development of a shorter, more concise IC risk statement. A total of 93.6% of experts agreed on definitions for AE classification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2023.2208668\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2023.2208668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying which adverse events associated with dry needling should be included for informed consent: A modified e-Delphi study.
Objective: Dry needling (DN) uses a monofilament needle to reduce pain and is performed by various healthcare professions. Due to the invasive needle puncture, adverse events (AEs) have been associated with DN. It is unclear, which AEs should be included in a risk statement for Informed Consent (IC). The purpose of this study was to identify which AEs should be included in a risk statement for IC.
Methods: A three-round e-Delphi study was undertaken using a panel of DN experts. Expert inclusion criteria included: (1) ≥5 years practice performing DN and one of the following secondary criteria: (A) certification in DN; (B) completion of a manual therapy fellowship that included DN training; or (C) ≥1 publication involving the use of DN. Participants rated their level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as either: 1) ≥80% agreement; or 2) ≥70% and <80% agreement with median ≥3, interquartile range ≤1, and standard deviation ≤1.
Results: A total of 14 (28%) AEs achieved final consensus in Round 3 for inclusion on IC. Kendall's Coefficient (w) of agreement for Round 2 was 0.213 and improved to 0.349 after Round 3. Wilcoxon rank tests revealed statistically significant changes for 12 of the 50 AEs.
Conclusion: Consensus was attained for 14 AEs for inclusion on IC. The AEs identified can be used for the development of a shorter, more concise IC risk statement. A total of 93.6% of experts agreed on definitions for AE classification.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Physiotherapy Theory and Practice is to provide an international, peer-reviewed forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of recent developments and current research in physiotherapy/physical therapy. The journal accepts original quantitative and qualitative research reports, theoretical papers, systematic literature reviews, clinical case reports, and technical clinical notes. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice; promotes post-basic education through reports, reviews, and updates on all aspects of physiotherapy and specialties relating to clinical physiotherapy.