Edmund C Ickert, David Griswold, Ken Learman, Chad Cook
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
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.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,650,184
of 26,604,138 outputs
Outputs from Physiotherapy Theory & Practice
#59
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,052
of 413,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiotherapy Theory & Practice
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,604,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 413,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
