Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Brief communication: Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial
Stephen Bent1, Amy Padula, Andrew L Avins
1University of California and San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Francisco, California 94121, USA. bent@itsa.ucsf.edu
Background:
There is no standard method of identifying adverse events in clinical trials.
Objective:
To determine whether 3 different methods of questioning patients about adverse events in a clinical trial affect the frequency of reported events.
Design:
Randomized, single-blind, controlled trial.
Setting:
A Veterans Administration medical center, San Francisco, California.
Participants:
Men 50 years of age or older who had benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Measurement:
Frequency of self-reported medical problems.
Intervention:
The authors randomly assigned 214 men who were undergoing a 1-month, single-blind, placebo run-in period during an existing clinical trial to 3 groups to test different self-administered methods of assessing medical problems at the end of the run-in period. The first group was asked an open-ended question; the second group was asked an open-ended, defined question; and the third group was given a checklist of 53 common side effects.
Results:
All 214 patients completed the study. Patients assigned to the checklist group reported a total of 238 adverse events; in comparison, patients who were asked an open-ended question or an open-ended, defined question reported 11 and 14 adverse events, respectively (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients reporting any adverse event was also much higher in the group assigned to the checklist (77%) than in the first group (14%) or second group (13%) (P < 0.001).
Limitations:
The study included only relatively healthy, well-educated, middle-aged men and assessed only self-reported medical problems after the participants had taken placebo for 1 month. All personnel overseeing the study were aware of the group assignments.
Conclusions:
Different methods of collecting patient data regarding adverse events lead to large differences in the reported rates of adverse events in clinical trials, potentially reducing the validity of comparisons between the side effect profiles of drugs and other interventions.
Related Concept Videos
Techniques of Therapeutic Communication II: Focusing, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing
This therapeutic technique can also be used when a patient brings up pertinent information during a health-related conversation. The...
Blinding
Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...
Types of Reports III: Telephone and Verbal Reports
Here's an overview of each type:
Telephone Orders
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
