Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Aug;40(8):455-63. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2010.3229.
Orthopaedic physical therapy is considered safe, based on a lack of reported harms. Most of the research until now has focused on benefits. Consideration of benefits and harm involves informed consent, clinical decision making, and cost-benefit analyses. Benefits and harms are treatment and dosage specific. There is currently an insufficient number of dosage trials in orthopaedic physical therapy to identify optimal dosage for common interventions, including exercise and manual therapy. Published cases of severe adverse events following chiropractic manipulation illustrate the need for physical therapy to have high-quality data documenting the safety of orthopaedic physical therapy, including cervical manipulation. A recent systematic review identified poor reporting standards of harms within clinical research in this area. Lack of standardization of terminology has contributed to this problem. Pharmacovigilence provides a framework for terms that orthopaedic physical therapy can adapt and thereafter adopt into clinical practice and research. Adverse events are unexpected events that occur following an intervention without evidence of causality. Where temporality of an event is highly suggestive of causality, the term "adverse reaction" may be more appropriate. Future studies in orthopaedic physical therapy should adopt the CONSORT statement extension on the reporting of harms, published in 2004, to ensure better reporting. Consistent reporting of harms in both research and clinical practice requires professional consensus on terminology pertaining to harms, as well as defining what constitutes an adverse event or an adverse reaction. Widespread consultation and consensus should support optimal definitions and processes and facilitate their implementation into practice. This paper is focused on theoretical considerations and evidence in terms of harm reporting within physical therapy using cervical manual therapy as an example.
骨科物理治疗被认为是安全的,因为没有报告的危害。迄今为止,大多数研究都集中在益处上。考虑益处和危害需要知情同意、临床决策和成本效益分析。益处和危害与治疗和剂量有关。目前,骨科物理治疗中关于剂量的试验数量不足,无法确定常见干预措施(包括运动和手法治疗)的最佳剂量。发表的关于整脊手法后严重不良事件的案例说明了物理治疗需要高质量的数据来记录骨科物理治疗的安全性,包括颈椎手法治疗。最近的一项系统评价发现,该领域临床研究中对危害的报告标准较差。术语缺乏标准化也是造成这一问题的原因之一。药物警戒为骨科物理治疗可以适应的术语提供了一个框架,并在此后将其纳入临床实践和研究。不良事件是指干预后发生的无因果关系的意外事件。如果事件的时间高度提示因果关系,则术语“不良反应”可能更为合适。骨科物理治疗的未来研究应采用 2004 年发布的《CONSORT 声明》扩展版来报告危害,以确保更好的报告。在研究和临床实践中一致报告危害需要就危害相关术语达成专业共识,并定义什么是不良事件或不良反应。广泛的咨询和共识应该支持最佳定义和流程,并促进其在实践中的实施。本文以颈椎手法治疗为例,重点讨论了物理治疗中报告危害的理论考虑和证据。