Expert consensus on a standardised definition and severity classification for adverse events associated with spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilisation: protocol for an international e-Delphi study

What's the harm? Results of an active surveillance adverse event reporting system for chiropractors and physiotherapists

This prospective, community-based, active surveillance study aimed to report the incidence of moderate, severe, and serious adverse events (AEs) after chiropractic (n = 100) / physiotherapist (n = 50) visit in offices throughout North America between October-2015 and December-2017. Three content-validated questionnaires were used to collect AE information: two completed by the patient (pre-treatment [T0] and 2-7 days post-treatment [T2]) and one completed by the provider immediately post-treatment [T1]. Any new or worsened symptom was considered an AE and further classified as mild, moderate, severe or serious. From the 42 participating providers (31 chiropractors; 11 physiotherapists), 3819 patient visits had complete T0 and T1 assessments. The patients were on average 50±18 years of age and 62.5% females. Neck/back pain was the most common presenting condition (70.0%) with 24.3% of patients reporting no condition/preventative care. From the patients visits with a complete T2 assessment (n = 2136 patient visits, 55.9%), 21.3% reported an AE, of which: 7.9% were mild, 6.2% moderate, 3.7% severe, 1.5% serious, and 2.0% had missing severity rating. The most common symptoms reported with moderate or higher severity were discomfort/pain, stiffness, difficulty walking and headache. This study provides valuable information for patients and providers regarding incidence and severity of AEs following patient visits in multiple community-based professions. These findings can be used to inform patients of what AEs may occur and future research opportunities can focus on mitigating common AEs.

Adverse Events Reported in Trials Assessing Manual Therapy to the Extremities: A Systematic Review

Objective: This review aimed to describe the quality and comprehensiveness of adverse event (AE) reporting in clinical trials incorporating manual therapy (MT) as an intervention for extremity conditions using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Harms extension as the benchmark. The secondary aim was to determine whether the quality of AE reporting improved after the availability of the CONSORT reporting checklist. Design: Systematic review. Methods: A literature search was conducted using multiple databases to identify trials where MT was used to treat extremity conditions. Studies that reported AEs were identified and evaluated using the CONSORT-Harms extension. The frequency of trials reporting study AEs before and after the publication of the updated 2010 CONSORT statement was calculated, along with the categorization of how study AEs were reported. Results: Of the 55,539 studies initially identified, 220 trials met all inclusion criteria. Eighty trials (36.4%) reported AE occurrence. None of the studies that reported AEs adhered to all 10 criteria proposed by the 2010 CONSORT-Harms extension. The most commonly reported criterion was number four, which clarified how AE-related information was collected (30% of trials). The least reported criterion was number six, which describes the participant withdrawals for each arm due to AEs and the experience with the allocated treatment (1.3% of trials). The nomenclature used to describe AEs varied substantially. Fifty-nine of 76 trials (33.3%) were published after the updated CONSORT Harms-checklist was available, compared to 21 of 44 trials (46.7%) published before it was available. Conclusion: Reporting of AEs in trials investigating MT for extremity conditions is poor. Every included trial lacked adherence to all 10 criteria proposed by the CONSORT-Harms Extension. The quality and comprehensiveness of AE reporting did not improve after the most recent CONSORT update recommending AE reporting. Clinicians must obtain informed consent before performing any intervention, including MT, which requires disclosing potential risks, which could be better known with improved tracking, analyzing, and reporting of AEs. The authors recommend improved adherence to best practices for adequately tracking and reporting AEs in future MT trials.

Reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial.

METHODS

Domains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

While the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

METHODS

An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.

RESULTS

From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).

CONCLUSION

A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.