Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Hugh MacPherson a See
Editorial by Vincent and
p 485 Foundation for
Traditional Chinese Medicine, York YO24 4EY, b Medical Care
Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, c Sheffield Health Economics
Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield Correspondence to: H MacPherson hugh{at}ftcm.org.uk
Recent reports have highlighted the importance of having
good evidence on the safety of acupuncture.
1 2
Sound
evidence on the risks associated with acupuncture is, however,
scarce.3 Our primary aim, therefore, was to describe the
type and frequency of adverse events after acupuncture. A secondary aim
was to examine mild transient reactions associated with acupuncture,
some of which may indicate a positive response to treatment.
The study involved a prospective postal audit of treatments
undertaken during a four week period in 2000. All 1848 professional acupuncturists who were members of the British Acupuncture Council and
were practising in the United Kingdom were invited to record details of
adverse events and mild transient reactions after treatment. Standardised self report forms were used. Participating practitioners also provided information on themselves, including age, sex, length of
training, and years of practice. To have a 95% probability that no
serious event occurs in n treatments, a survey sample size
needs to be three times n.4 On this basis, a
sample of 30 000 treatments was sought. Piloting indicated that a four
week period was needed.
A total of 574 practitioners participated, 31% of the total
population. The mean age of participants was 44.8 years (range 23-79 years), 65% were female, and 62% had been practising acupuncture for
more than five years. Information on sex, training college, and length
of practice was available from the British Acupuncture Council's
database. Participants were sufficiently representative of the
population of practitioners for a re-weighting of the primary data to
be unnecessary. Participating practitioners reported on 34 407 treatments.
Practitioners were asked to give details of any adverse events
they considered to be "significant," including any event that was
"unusual, novel, dangerous, significantly inconvenient, or requiring
further information." There were no reports of serious adverse
events, defined as events requiring hospital admission, leading to
permanent disability, or resulting in death (95% confidence interval 0 to 1.1 per 10 000 treatments). Practitioners did, however, report 43 minor adverse events, a rate of 1.3 (0.9 to 1.7) per 1000 treatments.
The most common events were severe nausea and fainting (table). Three
avoidable events
![]()
Participants, methods, and results
Top
Participants, methods, and...
Comment
References
two patients had needles left in, and one patient had
moxibustion burns to the skin
were caused by practitioners'
errors.
Participating practitioners recorded 10 920 mild transient
reactions occurring in 5136 treatments, 15% (14.6% to 15.3%) of the
34 407 total. Some local reactions at the site of needling were
reported
mild bruising in 587 (1.7%) cases, pain in 422 (1.2%) cases, and bleeding in 126 (0.4%) cases. Patients experienced an
aggravation of existing symptoms after 966 (2.8%) treatments, 830 (86%) of which were followed by an improvement, possibly indicating a
positive "healing crisis." The most commonly reported mild
transient reactions were "feeling relaxed" in 4098 (11.9%)
cases and "feeling energised" in 2267 (6.6%) cases, symptoms that
often indicate an encouraging response to treatment.3
| |
Comment |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In this prospective survey, no serious adverse events were
reported after 34 407 acupuncture treatments. This is consistent, with
95% confidence, with an underlying serious adverse event rate of
between 0 and 1.1 per 10 000 treatments. This conclusion was based on
data collected over a four week period by one in three of the members
of the British Acupuncture Council. Even given the potential bias of
self reporting, this is important evidence on public health and safety
as professional acupuncturists deliver approximately two million
treatments per year in the United Kingdom. Comparison of this adverse
event rate for acupuncture with those of drugs routinely prescribed in
primary care suggests that acupuncture is a relatively safe form of
treatment.5 Further research measuring patients'
experience of adverse events is merited.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Contributors: HMacP initiated the project, coordinated the study, and is the guarantor. KT and MF contributed to the study design, interpretation of results, and drafting of the manuscript. SW analysed the data and assisted with the interpretation of results. The study was adapted from a survey design developed by Adrian White and colleagues. Alan Bensoussan, Stephen Birch, Alan Breen, Roy Carr-Hill, and Adrian White provided valuable comments on a draft protocol.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: The study was supported by a grant from the British Acupuncture Council.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | British Medical Association Board of Science and Education. Acupuncture: efficacy, safety and practice. London: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000. |
| 2. | House of Lords. Complementary and alternative medicine. London: Stationery Office, 2000. (Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.) |
| 3. | MacPherson H. How safe is acupuncture? Developing the evidence on risk. J Alternative Complementary Med 1999; 5: 223-224[Medline]. |
| 4. |
Eypasch E, Lefering R, Kum CK, Toidl H.
Probability of adverse events that have not yet occurred: a statistical reminder.
BMJ
1995;
311:
619-620 |
| 5. | Tranmer MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJM, McQuay HJ. Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events, which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use. Pain 2000; 85: 169-182[CrossRef][Medline]. |
(Accepted 23 May 2001)
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+