Background
Acupotomy, a more invasive procedure than acupuncture, involves the use of a thicker needle with an integrated knife at the tip, necessitating safety research. We aimed to define relevant adverse events (AEs) and create a standardized form of the ACUPOtomy-related AEs CHECKlist (ACUPOCHECK).
Methods
Before conducting the Delphi process, a systematic review and pilot prospective study were conducted to gather information on previously reported AEs. Using these data, pilot versions of the ACUPOCHECK and Delphi questionnaires were developed. The Delphi questionnaire involved selecting types of AE for inclusion, establishing separate criteria for acupotomy-related AEs, and achieving a consensus on AE assessment. Thirteen Korean doctors with experience in acupotomy or AE research were recruited to participate in each Delphi round. Consensus was considered to have been reached if the critical value for the content validity ratio met or exceeded 0.538.
Results
The final ACUPOCHECK was developed using four rounds of the Delphi method and one face-to-face consensus meeting. It included 12 local AEs (pain, hemorrhage, bruise, hematoma, edema, pruritus, rash, infection, nerve damage, dysesthesia, movement impairment, and pneumothorax) and 14 systemic AEs (disease aggravation, needle fatigue, sleepiness, procedural nausea, procedural vomiting, procedural headache, procedural dizziness, sweating, procedural shock, syncope, dyspnea, procedural pain, sleep disorder, and postprocedural infection). Separate criteria were established for pain, hemorrhage and bruising: pain was defined as pain that occurrs during daily activities and persists for longer than 72 h, hemorrhage as bleeding that continues for ≥ 3 min despite pressure application, and bruising as having a bruise with a diameter of ≥ 3 cm. Open-ended descriptions were allowed for AEs not covered by the checklist, and severity and causality were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and modified World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center criteria.
Conclusion
ACUPOCHECK provides a standardization framework that can help research on traditional practices as well as new tools and techniques that are more invasive and may cause more severe AEs. Subsequent studies will use ACUPOCHECK to develop rational safety guidelines for acupotomy techniques.

Key words: Acupotomy, Delphi technique, Patient safety, Safety management, Adverse event