A rapid review of physical health risks associated with special procedures (tattooing, body piercing, acupuncture, electrolysis)

2.1.1 Overview of the evidence base on tattooing

The searches identified one SR (Sindoni et al. 2021) that focused on tattooing, which included 55 studies (see Table 10). The study designs included 32 case reports, 13 case series, seven cross-sectional studies, two prospective cohort studies and one retrospective cohort study, which were published between 1991 and 2020. From 2015 to 2020 there were 15 case reports, eight case series and one cohort study. The locations of the tattoo on the body that were reported include the torso (seven studies), arm (nine studies), leg (six studies), face (three studies), buttock (one study), penis (one study) and multiple sites (ten studies). A further 18 studies did not report the location of the tattoo. The type of practitioner undertaking the procedures was not reported. The countries where the procedures took place were not reported. The outcomes were microbiological and non-microbiological adverse reactions as a result of tattoos in mainly adult populations (three studies included children under 18 years of age). The time frame for reporting or experiencing an adverse effect or complication, where reported, ranged from six days to two months for the studies that reported microbiological complications and from two weeks to over 10 years for the studies that reported non-microbiological complications.

The sex of participants across the case reports reporting single cases was split between males (16 studies) and females (14 studies). Two further case reports of three participants had a mix of both males and females. The sex of participants across the remaining study types (23 studies) were males (two studies), females (one study), a mix (seven studies) and 13 studies did not provide this detail.

2.1.2 Physical health risks associated with tattooing

In the one included SR by Sindoni et al. (2021), the clinical presentations commonly reported after receiving a tattoo include the following: skin irritation, swollen glands near the site, bleeding, oedema (swelling), pruritus (itching), suppuration (production of pus), blistering, scabs, pain, fever, nausea and vomiting (see Table 1).

Across 10 of the included studies (five case reports and five case series) reporting microbiological complications in the SR (seven good quality, two poor quality and one fair quality), the most commonly reported bacterial infections included non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infections (60 cases), Mycobacterium chelonae infections (14 cases) and cutaneous Mycobacterial infections (four cases). Less commonly reported bacterial infections included life-threatening cellulitis (two cases), cutaneous diphtheria (two cases) and staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome infection (one case). Additionally, one study (case series) described the presence of warts. The review authors concluded that it is likely that these outbreaks can be linked to poor infection control practices and contaminated or diluted inks. Additionally, one instance of the blood-borne infection Hepatitis C Virus transmitted through the use of contaminated tattoo equipment was reported.

The SR identified two case series (good quality) and one case report (fair quality) that were published from 2015 to 2020 that reported bacterial and viral infections. These were non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infections (two cases), Staphylococcal infection (one case) and warts (one case).

Thirty-seven of the included studies (23 good quality case reports, four fair quality case reports, eight good quality case series, one fair quality cross sectional and one good quality cohort study) reported a wide variety of non-microbiological complications. The most frequently reported were allergic reactions such as contact dermatitis to the pigments or components in tattoo ink. Other non-microbiological complications that were described include cancerous growths, benign growth conditions, sarcoidosis-related reactions (including granulomatous reactions), skin-related adverse reactions, eye-related adverse reactions and other adverse reactions.

Findings from the case reports and case series have reported a number of different types of cancers occurring in some instances up to 16 years after a person has had a tattoo and include melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and leiomyosarcoma. The benign growth conditions that have been described include haemangioma, epithelioid osteoblastoma and dermatofibroma. The sarcoidosis-related reactions that were described include sarcoidosis, sarcoid uveitis, cutaneous and pulmonary sarcoidosis, granulomatous infiltrate and granulomatous dermatitis.

A wide range of other skin-related adverse reactions have been described and include dermatitis (eczema), lichenoid reactions, inflammatory reactions, keratoacanthoma, nodular dermal lymphohistiocytic infiltration, pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, pyoderma gangrenosum, Koebner phenomenon, scar formation, papulo-nodular reactions and skin thickening. Additionally, a diverse range of other adverse reactions described within single cases have also been reported, such as priapism linked to a tattoo of the penis, cutaneous and pulmonary sarcoidosis, lymphopathy and photosensitivity. Eye-related adverse effects that have occurred after receiving a lid-eye tattoo include short tear film break-up time, corneal erosion and meibomian gland loss, increased tear film instability and exacerbated signs and symptoms of ocular surface disease.

2.1.3 The quality of the SR of tattooing

The included SR of tattooing (Sindoni et al. 2021) received eight out of 11 points on the relevant critical appraisal checklist. While the SR had no critical flaws (the search strategy, the criteria for appraising studies and the methods used to combine studies were appropriate, and the sources and resources used to search for studies were adequate), it had some weaknesses deemed non-critical for the purposes of the present review, such as the lack of assessment of the likelihood of publication bias. The SR was therefore considered to be of moderate quality. Information on how quality was derived is provided in Section 5.5. More detail on the quality of the included SR can be found in Table 16 in Section 6.3.

2.1.4 Bottom line summary for tattooing

Evidence from one moderate quality SR (Sindoni et al. 2021) described a wide range of complications and adverse reactions experienced by individuals after getting a tattoo. These were classified as microbiological complications – bacterial infections, viral infections and blood-borne infections, and non-microbiological complications – allergic reactions, malignant growths, benign growths, sarcoidosis-related reactions (including granulomatous reactions), along with a wide range of other skin-related adverse reactions. The countries where the procedures took place were not reported.

Bacterial and viral infections reported in studies published since 2015 included non-tuberculous mycobacterial skin infections, staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome and warts.

2.2.1 Overview of the evidence base on semi-permanent make-up

The searches identified one SR (Motoki et al. 2020), see Table 11, which sought to retrieve primary research reporting pathological scaring after eyebrow micropigmentation. However, this SR did not find any such primary research.

Due to the lack of existing secondary research, a search for primary studies was conducted as part of the present review. It identified 31 case reports (see Table 12), which were published between 2015 and 2023 that reported a variety of adverse reactions. The sample size for each case report varied from one participant to five participants, with 28 case reports (90%) involving a single participant. In total, there were 37 individual cases presented. In the majority of cases (n=26; 84%), the specific practitioner responsible for the semi-permanent make-up procedure was not explicitly specified. Among the cases (six case reports) where the practitioner information was provided, two involved non-medical professionals, one mentioned an aesthetician, one identified a medical practitioner, and for one case, it was unclear whether the practitioner was a medical or non-medical professional. Across the cases, the majority (n=33, 89.2%) of the permanent make-up procedures were applied to eyebrows, two cases (5.4%) were confined to the lips, while one case (2.7%) was limited to the eyelids and a single case (2.7%) involved both the lips and eyebrows.

The timeframe between the semi-permanent make-up procedure and a person presenting at the hospital for a microbiological reaction across five cases ranged from the same day to one month. The time frame for the non-microbiological reactions varied significantly. In two cases (5.4%), reactions occurred within one to two days after the semi-permanent make-up procedure. In 15 cases (40.5%), reactions appeared within a range of one to 21 months. Additionally, five cases (13.5%) reported reactions occurring two to five years later, while four cases (10.8%) documented reactions emerging eight to 16 years after the procedure. In six cases (16.2%), the timeframe was not reported.

Participants across the case reports were all women, with varying ages ranging from 25 to 75 years old. Among the 31 case reports examined, only seven of them explicitly mentioned the ethnicity of the individuals, specifically Hispanic (three cases), Caucasian (one case), Chinese (one case), Japanese (one case) and Lithuanian (one case).

The majority (n=26, 84%) of the procedures occurred in what was assumed to be a commercial setting, although five case reports (16%) did not specify the setting. The case reports originated from a total of 18 countries and included Iran (n=4), the USA (n=4), two case reports each from Brazil, China, Japan, Germany, and Spain and one case report each from Canada, Colombia, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Republic of Ireland, Syria, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey and the UK. The country of origin for two reports, specifically Hinojosa et al. (2017; Mexico or the USA) and Vera et al. (2018; Venezuela or Germany), was not clear.

2.2.2 Physical health risks associated with semi-permanent make-up

Across the 37 cases presented in 31 case reports, the clinical presentations commonly reported after following the application of semi-permanent make-up are reported in Table 1 and include erythema or redness (Akoh et al. 2021, Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Gilhooley et al. 2020, Goldberg et al. 2018, Maier et al. 2015, Mirzaei et al. 2017, Naeini et al. 2017, Sano et al. 2021, Suleman et al. 2023, Tittelbach et al. 2018, Vera et al. 2018); oedema or swelling (Akoh et al. 2021, Gilhooley et al. 2020, Lahouel et al. 2022, Sano et al. 2021, Soltany et al. 2023), pain (Motoki et al. 2020) and pruritus (Abtahi-Naeini et al. 2019, Ibraheim et al. 2023, Lahouel et al. 2022, Motoki et al. 2020, Tittelbach et al. 2018, Valbuena et al. 2017, Vera et al. 2018).

Five case reports (Akoh et al. 2021, Castaño-Fernández & Grau-Pérez 2023, Marcelino et al. 2021, Sano et al. 2021, Soltany et al. 2023) reported microbiological complications in the context of semi-permanent make-up, which included both viral and bacterial infections. The viral infections reported were monkeypox (mpox) (Castaño-Fernández & Grau-Pérez 2023) and Molluscum contagiosum (Marcelino et al. 2021) and the bacterial infections reported were orbital cellulitis (Soltany et al. 2023), three cases of periorbital cellulitis (Akoh et al. 2021, Soltany et al. 2023, Sano et al. 2021) and necrotising fasciitis (Soltany et al. 2023).

The non-microbiological adverse reactions that have been described in the context of semi-permanent make-up included 25 cases (across 19 case reports) of sarcoidosis-related reactions (Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Bombonato et al. 2015, Ebrahimiadib et al. 2021, Gilhooley et al. 2020, Hirai et al. 2022, Huisman et al. 2019, Ibraheim et al. 2023, Iwayama et al. 2017, Mirzaei et al. 2017, Naeini et al. 2017, Nie et al. 2022, Tukenmez Demirci et al. 2016, Valbuena et al. 2017, Vera et al. 2018, Tittelbach et al. 2018); 17 cases of granulomatous reactions, including papules (Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Ebrahimiadib et al. 2021, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Hirai et al. 2022, Huisman et al. 2019, Ibraheim et al. 2023, Iwayama et al. 2017, Leight-Dunn et al. 2022, Maier et al. 2015, Naeini et al. 2017, Nie et al. 2022, Suleman et al. 2023, Sun & Lao 2023, Tittelbach et al. 2018, Tukenmez Demirci et al. 2016, Valbuena et al. 2017); three cases of allergic reactions (Lahouel et al. 2022, Ibraheim et al. 2023, Motoki et al. 2020), 19 cases of skin-related adverse reactions (Abtahi-Naeini et al. 2019, Akoh et al. 2021, Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Ebrahimiadib et al. 2021, Gilhooley et al. 2020, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Goldberg et al. 2018, Hirai et al. 2022, Maier et al. 2015, Mirzaei et al. 2017, Naeini et al. 2017, Marcelino et al. 2021, Navarro-Triviño et al. 2021, Nie et al. 2022, Sano et al. 2021, Suleman et al. 2023, Tierney & Kavanagh 2021, Tittelbach et al. 2018, Vera et al. 2018) and five cases of eye-related adverse reactions and other adverse reactions (Sano et al. 2021, Goldberg et al. 2018, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Soltany et al. 2023, Navarro-Triviño et al. 2021).

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem inflammatory disorder characterised by the presence of granulomas in various organs and tissues throughout the body. Five cases describe cutaneous sarcoidosis (Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Ibraheim et al. 2023, Naeini et al. 2017, Tukenmez Demirci et al. 2016), five cases describe systemic sarcoidosis, i.e. affecting multiple organs systems in the body (Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Ebrahimiadib et al. 2021, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Vera et al. 2018, Huisman et al. 2019), one case of pulmonary sarcoidosis (Naeini et al. 2017) and one case of Löfgren’s syndrome, an acute form of sarcoidosis (Mirzaei et al. 2017). A range of granulomatous reactions across the 17 cases were described using a variety of terms, for example, non-caseating granulomas, granulomatous dermatitis, chronic granulomatous inflammation and sarcoidal foreign body (granulomatous) reactions.

A number of skin-related adverse effects were described and these include crusting (Akoh et al. 2021, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Sano et al. 2021, Suleman et al. 2023), cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia (Navarro-Triviño et al. 2021); hyperpigmentation (Abtahi-Naeini et al. 2019, Akoh et al. 2021), hyperplasia (Marcelino et al. 2021), induration (Maier et al. 2015), irritation (Goldberg et al. 2018), lichenoid tattoo reactions (Abtahi-Naeini et al. 2019), pustules (Akoh et al. 2021), rash (Hirai et al. 2022, Nie et al. 2022, Suleman et al. 2023), scaling (Ebrahimiadib et al. 2021, Maier et al. 2015, Tittelbach et al. 2018), vitiligo arising from the koebnerisation effect of microblading (Tierney & Kavanagh 2021).

Additionally, there were eye-related adverse reactions described which included bilateral eye swelling, redness, and pain (Sano et al. 2021), conjunctival injection (Goldberg et al. 2018, Hinojosa et al. 2017), irritation (Goldberg et al. 2018), right eye proptosis and painful eye movement (Soltany et al. 2023) uveitis (Navarro-Triviño et al. 2021) and pigmented stain on the eye (Goldberg et al. 2018).

The non-microbiological allergic reactions were reported in relation to the pigments or components of the semi-permanent make-up inks (for example, iron oxide in Leight-Dunn et al. 2022) or to the tattoo being performed with nickel containing needles (Lahouel et al. 2022).

2.2.3 The quality of the studies on semi-permanent make-up

The quality rating for the case reports of complications associated with semi-permanent make-up ranges from four to eight points out of eight, indicating varying levels of methodological rigour and reporting quality in the included case reports.

Demographic characteristics, the clinical condition of the patient on presentation and diagnostic tests or assessment methods and their results were clearly described in all case reports. All but one case report clearly described the patient’s history and presented it as a timeline. More detail can be found in Table 17 in Section 6.3.

Seven case reports achieved the highest rating of eight out of eight on the relevant critical appraisal checklist (Akoh et al. 2021, Gilhooley et al. 2020, Goldberg et al. 2018, Hinojosa et al. 2017, Leight-Dunn et al. 2022, Mirzaei et al. 2017, Soltany et al. 2023, Sun & Lao 2023).

Seventeen case reports received a rating of seven out of eight (Abtahi-Naeini et al. 2019, Ebrahimiadib et al. 2021, Hirai et al. 2022, Huisman et al. 2019, Ibraheim et al. 2023, Iwayama et al. 2017, Lahouel et al. 2022, Maier et al. 2015, Marcelino et al. 2021, Motoki et al. 2020, Naeini et al. 2017, Navarro-Triviño et al. 2021, Nie et al. 2022).

Three case reports earned a score of six out of eight (Sano et al. 2021, Tierney & Kavanagh 2021, Valbuena et al. 2017). Three case reports were rated five out of eight (Bashinskaya et al. 2022, Castaño-Fernández & Grau-Pérez 2023, Vera et al. 2018). Finally, a single case report was rated four out of eight (Bombonato et al. 2015).

2.2.4 Bottom line summary for semi-permanent make-up

Evidence from 31 case reports reporting on 37 individual cases described a diverse spectrum of complications and adverse reactions experienced by individuals following the application of semi-permanent make-up. These can be broadly classified as microbiological complications (bacterial infections and viral infections) and non-microbiological complications (sarcoidosis-related reactions, including granulomatous reactions, allergic reactions and a range of other skin and eye-related adverse reactions).

The countries where the procedure took place were Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Germany, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Syria, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey, the UK and the USA.

Bacterial and viral infections reported in studies published since 2015 included Molluscum contagiosum, orbital cellulitis, periorbital cellulitis, necrotising fasciitis and monkeypox.

2.3.1 Overview of the evidence base on body piercing

The searches identified four SRs (Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022, Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016, Passos et al. 2022, Sindoni et al. 2022) that included 174 studies published between 1973 and 2020 focusing on body piercing (see Table 13). There was a moderate overlap across the SRs, meaning that 30 primary studies were included in more than one SR. More details about overlap can be found in Section 5.6. All of the information that follows is based on the 174 studies.

Two of the SRs included adults and children and the remaining two SRs did not provide this detail. Three SRs provided details of the sex of the participants and between 61% and 85% were female. None of the SRs reported the ethnicity of the participants. Three SRs reported the country where the body piercing took place.

The study designs included before-after design (one study), case-control (23 studies), case report (62 studies), case report in a cross-sectional study (one study), case series (15 studies), cohort (five studies), cross-sectional (65 studies, out of which 26 were prevalence studies), quasi-experimental (one study) and randomised controlled trial (one study). The SRs identified three case series, seven case reports, 11 cross-sectional studies (out of which four were prevalence studies), four case-control studies, one retrospective cohort study, and one quasi-experimental study that were published between 2015 and 2020.

The research was conducted across 31 different countries with just under a third of the studies being conducted in the USA (50 studies) and only six in the UK. Two SRs focused on oral piercing (Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016, Passos et al. 2022), one on nipple piercing (Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022) and one on piercing in general (Sindoni et al. 2022). Across all the SRs, there were 213 puncture (piercing) sites, which included the ear (22 studies), nipple (28 studies), tongue (68 studies), lip (44 studies), tongue and lip (nine studies), oral (15 studies), nose (one study), genital (one study) and navel (one study). Puncture (piercing) site was not reported in a further 24 studies. The type of practitioner undertaking the procedures was not reported.

Three of the four SRs (Sindoni et al. 2022, Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022, Passos et al. 2022) reported on the time frame for experiencing an adverse reaction or complication. Acuña-Chavez et al. (2022) and Passos et al. (2022) made no distinction when reporting microbiological and non-microbiological effects and the time frame ranged from immediate (n=11) to less than six months (n=13) and over six months (n=16), three of the 16 being over one year. The time frame wasn’t reported in a further 41 studies. Sindoni et al. (2022) made a distinction when reporting microbiological and non-microbiological effects. For the studies reporting microbiological effects, the time frame ranged from within the first month (n=19), one to six months (n=13), six to 12 months (n=3) and over one year (n=8), with one study as late as eight years after the procedure. The time frame was not reported in a further ten studies. For the studies reporting non-microbiological effects, the time frame varied between less than one year (n=1) to over one year (n=5), with a further five studies not reporting. For the studies reporting both microbiological and non-microbiological effects, the time frame ranged from less than one year (n=3) to over one year (n=5), with a further 12 studies not reporting it.

The outcomes studied were most frequently isolated bacteria, microbiological complications, non-microbiological complications and the occurrence of clinical manifestations/ complications, oral lesions related to soft tissue and mucosa, periodontal and tooth damage and alterations (speech, mastication, deglutition and taste-related, saliva and galvanic current, temporomandibular disorders, soft plaque and calculus formation and microbiology).

2.3.2 Physical health risks associated with body piercing

Across the four SRs (Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022; Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016; Passos et al. 2022, Sindoni et al. 2022), the clinical presentations commonly reported after having undergone body piercing varied according to the site of the piercing. Specifically, those who had nipple piercings described breast fluid collection, breast pain or tenderness, breast swelling, deformity and discharge, as well as similar presentations to those having a piercing in other parts of the body, including erythema, fever, headache, hyperpigmentation, oedema, productive cough with bloody sputum, pruritus, swollen glands and syncope (see Table 1).

Three SRs reported microbiological complications in individuals who have undergone body piercing (Sindoni et al. 2022, Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022, Passos et al. 2022), which included fungal infections (Candida dubliniensis), viral infections (viral hepatitis and Herpes simplex hepatitis) and bacterial infections. The bacterial infections that were described included cephalic tetanus, cerebellar brain abscess, chest wall cellulitis/retroareolar cellulitis, endocarditis, glomerulonephritis, mastitis and toxic shock syndrome and infections (unspecified). The commonly occurring organisms identified as causative agents for infections were Staphylococcus and non-tuberculous Mycobacterium. Sixteen rarer types of organisms were identified as causative agents of infections in people who received a body piercing (for details, see Table 2). Information on the prevalence of infections was not available.

The three SRs included two case series, five case reports, five cross-sectional studies (out of which two were prevalence studies) and one retrospective cohort study that were published from 2015 to 2020 that reported bacterial and fungal infections. The bacterial and fungal infections that were described included retroareolar cellulitis (one case), unspecified infections (five cross-sectional studies) and Candida dublinensis (one case). The commonly occurring organisms identified as causative agents for infections included Neisseria gonorrhoeae (two cases), Propionibacterium acnes (two case series n=11) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (one case). Rarer types of organisms that were identified as causative agents in people who received a body piercing included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (one retrospective cohort study), Mycobacterium fortuitum (one case), Staphylococcus epidermidis alongside Actinomyces turicensis and Peptoniphilus harei (one case), Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (one case series n=4), Corynebacterium amycolatum (one case series n=4), Haemophilus parainfluenzae (one case series n=4), and a rare gram-positive cocci not otherwise specified (one case series n=4).

The non-microbiological adverse reactions that have been described in the context of body piercing include allergic reactions, malignant growths (basal cell carcinoma), benign growths (fibroma) and a wide range of other skin-related adverse reactions (acne, cysts, eczema (dermatitis), inflammatory reactions, scarification/keloid formation, induration and skin tearing) (Passos et al. 2022, Sindoni et al. 2022). The allergic reactions included contact dermatitis and nickel sensitisation (body piercing tattoo being performed with nickel-containing needles).

Additionally, in relation to tongue and lip piercings, a number of specific adverse reactions were described, which were oral and mucosal lesions, periodontal issues, teeth damage and alterations (changes), and these are reported in Table 3. Two SRs reported relative risks (RR), odds ratios (ORs) and event rates (ERs) to the incidence of oral and teeth injuries and the association between the presence of oral piercings and gingival recessions or dental alterations (Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016, Passos et al. 2022). Based on these SRs, the event rate within a pierced population indicated that 33% of participants with an oral piercing had gingival recession (Passos et al. 2022). Compared to the population without a piercing, the incidence of gingival recession was 2.77 times more likely in people with tongue piercing (RR = 2.77, 95% CI 1.99 to 3.85; p<0 .001) and 4.14 times more likely with a lip piercing (RR = 4.14, 95% CI 1.54 to 11.13; p=0.005; Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016). This is supported by findings from Passos et al. (2022), who found that the odds of developing gingival recession were seven times higher in people with an oral piercing than in individuals without it (OR = 7.085; 95% CI 4.252 to 11.805; p<0 .001).

The event rate of dental fracture (ER = 0.338; 95% CI 0.248 to 0.440), wear or abrasion (ER 0.344; 95% CI 0.183 to 0.553) in individuals with oral piercing was 34%, followed by 27% of dental damage (lesion not reported in detail) (ER = 0.270; 95% CI 0.074 to 0.630), and 22% of tooth chipping or enamel infraction (Passos et al. 2022). Incidence of tooth injury (including chipped/cracked/broken teeth, tooth wear or fractures) compared to unpierced individuals was 2.44 times more likely with a tongue piercing (RR = 2.44, 95% CI 1.35 to 4.41; p=0.003), although it was not significantly more likely with a lip piercing (RR = 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.41; p=0.34; Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016). The odds of dental fracture were three times higher in people with an oral piercing compared to individuals without it (OR = 3.293; 95% CI: 1.868 to 5.807; p <0.001), although no significant association was detected between tooth chipping or enamel infraction and oral piercings (OR = 2.223; 95% CI 0.737 to 6.775; p=0.156; Passos et al. 2022).

A diverse range of other adverse reactions were described for people undergoing body piercing and these include adornment aspiration. Adverse effects also included nipple ring ripped out, embedded earrings, lymphadenopathy, rejection and a split tongue.

2.3.3 The quality of the SRs of body piercing

The quality of the SRs of body piercing is as follows. Out of the four included SRs, one received the highest score of 11 out of 11 on the relevant critical appraisal checklist (Passos et al. 2022). It was therefore deemed to be high quality. Two scored nine out of 11 (Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022, Sindoni et al. 2022). Neither had any flaws considered critical for the purposes of the present review, but they had non-critical weaknesses, such as the lack of assessment of the likelihood of publication bias, so they were considered to be of moderate quality. Finally, one SR scored eight out of 11 (Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016). It was considered to be of low quality because one critical flaw was identified (the methods used to combine studies were not considered appropriate), as well as some non-critical weaknesses. More detail can be found in Table 16 in Section 6.3.

2.3.4 Bottom line summary for body piercing

Evidence from four SRs (Acuña-Chavez et al. 2022 – moderate quality; Hennequin-Hoenderdos et al. 2016 – low quality; Passos et al. 2022 – high quality, Sindoni et al. 2022 – moderate quality) described a wide range of complications and adverse reactions experienced by individuals who had undergone body piercing. These were classified as microbiological complications (fungal, viral and bacterial infections) and non-microbiological complications (allergic reactions, malignant growths, benign growths, and other skin adverse reactions). The countries where the procedures took place were Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, USA and Venezuela.

Bacterial and fungal infections reported in studies published since 2015 included retroareolar cellulitis, unspecified infections and Candida dublinensis. Common causative agents for infections were identified and included Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Rare causative agents for infections were identified and included Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium fortuitum, Staphylococcus epidermidis alongside Actinomyces turicensis and Peptoniphilus harei, Coagulase-negative Staphylococci, Corynebacterium amycolatum, Haemophilus parainfluenzae and rare gram-positive cocci not otherwise specified.

Following oral piercings, including tongue and lip, a range of non-microbiological complications were reported, which included soft tissue and mucosal lesions, periodontal issues, teeth damage and alterations (changes).

2.4.1 Overview of the evidence base on acupuncture

The searches identified five overviews of existing SRs (Yang et al. 2015, Chan et al. 2017, Vieira et al. 2018, Kwon et al. 2019, Xu et al. 2023) that focused on acupuncture. To avoid repetition, two overviews of SRs deemed the most exhaustive were selected for this report: one evidence map of 535 SRs with no age limit for participants (Xu et al. 2023) and one overview of 24 SRs focused on children up to 18 years old, of which six reported adverse reactions (Yang et al. 2015) – see Table 14 for detail. Among the six SRs reporting adverse reactions included in Yang et al. (2015), one was also included in Xu et al. (2023). As for the overviews of SRs identified but not reported here, Chan et al. (2017) included 17 SRs, Kwon et al. (2019) included 11 SRs, and Vieira et al. (2018) focused on auriculotherapy, including ear acupuncture, and included a total of 14 SRs. None of the three reviews were limited to children.

The evidence map of 535 SRs included both healthy people and people with 23 different disease types classified by ICD-11 (Xu et al. 2023). The included SRs were published between 1999 and 2022. It included 18 types of acupuncture, with the most popular being electroacupuncture (67 SRs), followed by manual acupuncture (47 SRs), acupoint catgut embedding (41 SRs), dry needling therapy (39 SRs), auricular acupuncture (22 SRs) and acupoint injection (14 SRs). Systematic reviews of acupuncture where there was no penetration of the skin were excluded. The age and sex of participants varied and were not reported for each included SR. The first authors of the SRs came from 18 different countries, mainly from China (336 SRs), followed by South Korea (90 SRs) and the USA (30 SRs). Twenty SRs came from the UK. The countries of origin of the primary studies included in the overview of SRs were not reported. The outcomes of interest included any adverse reactions experienced by individuals who have undergone acupuncture.

The six relevant SRs in the overview of SRs of acupuncture in children (Yang et al. 2015) included participants aged up to 18 years old with nocturnal enuresis (2 SRs), Autism (2 SRs), cerebral palsy (1 SR) and asthma (1 SR). The included SRs reported on unspecified acupuncture, needle acupuncture, tongue acupuncture, scalp acupuncture, heat-producing needling and laser acupuncture. However, one SR out of the six only reported on the adverse events experienced by individuals who have undergone with laser acupuncture and is not included here due to it being outside of the eligibility criteria. The first authors of four of the remaining SRs originated from China and one from Korea. The countries of origin of the primary studies were not reported. Any adverse reactions experienced by individuals who have undergone with acupuncture were included.

2.4.2 Physical health risks associated with acupuncture

In the evidence map of SRs (Xu et al. 2023), adverse events commonly reported by individuals who have undergone acupuncture include the following: pain (144 SRs), bleeding or bruising (120 SRs), digestive system symptoms such as nausea or vomiting, loss of appetite, dry mouth, constipation, diarrhoea, dyspepsia and heartburn (46 SRs), erythema (19 SRs), tiredness (40 SRs), discomforts (31 SRs), headache (27 SRs), pruritus (23 SRs), aggravation of symptoms (14 SRs), numbness (13 SRs), fevers (10 SRs), palpitations (10 SRs), heat or sweating (8 SRs), menoxenia (5 SRs), mild oedema (swelling) (16 SRs) and blisters (3 SRs). Syncope was reported in 86 SRs. It was thought to be linked to stress and fear of acupuncture in patients as well as frail and seriously ill patients and those with excessive blood loss, a history of dizziness from acupuncture and an improper posture.

Microbiological complications included infections, which were reported in 19 SRs¹. Xu et al. (2023) stated that infections occurred primarily because of unsterilised needles, repeated use of needles, or contact of the needlepoint with clothing, but no further information on the cause of infections or how the causation was derived was provided. All patients recovered after receiving treatment. According to the authors of the evidence map, the rate of infections related to acupuncture has been decreasing in recent years due to the rise of health consciousness and disinfection.

Eleven SRs that reported infections in people who had received acupuncture were identified through supplementary materials to Xu et al. (2023). They were published between 2015 and 2021. These SRs included between six and 61 primary studies (M = 24.64), but the publication dates of the primary studies or the search dates were not reported in the evidence map. The reported infections were classified by Xu et al. (2023) as unspecified infections (4 SRs), skin infections (4 SRs, including 1 SR reporting a local skin infection), local or systemic infection (1 SR), pulmonary infection (1 SR) and urinary system infection (1 SR, in patients with urinary retention). No further information about the infections was provided.

One SR included primary studies with children six to 14 months old with cerebral palsy. Participants’ age in the other included SRs was either reported as adults or not specified. Ten of the SRs came from China and one from the USA. All of the SRs included a control condition (e.g., other kinds of Chinese medicine, western medicine, rehabilitation training, unspecified usual care, unspecified other therapy, sham acupuncture, and waitlist control). The quality of these SRs was classified by Xu et al. (2023) as critically low (n=6), low (n=4) and high (n=1).

To gain a better understanding of what kind of infections have been reported in recent years in people who have undergone acupuncture, the SRs included in the evidence map (Xu et al. 2023) that reported infections and were published after 2015 (n=9) were retrieved at full-text and examined further, as a snapshot of the available evidence rather than a systematic report, which was not feasible due to the time constraints of this rapid review. Formal data extraction or quality appraisal of these SRs was not conducted. Two unique primary studies published since 2015 reporting infections (one reporting skin infection and one unspecified infection) were identified in those SRs, but neither of them specified the type of infection.

Regarding non-microbiological complications described in the evidence map of SRs (Xu et al. 2023), skin allergy reactions (14 SRs), haematomas (70 SRs), and induration (11 SRs) were reported. The evidence map also reported on adverse events such as neuromuscular disease (16 SRs) and motor disorders (2 SRs).

Other adverse events were reported in 373 SRs identified by the evidence map and included needle sticking, broken needles, and bent needles. No acupuncture-related adverse events were reported in 176 reviews and 120 reviews did not specify adverse events. In addition, 89 SRs stated that no adverse events were reported in the original studies.

Fifty-three SRs reported that acupuncture-related adverse events were associated with the practitioners, but no information on how the association was derived was provided in the evidence map. Severe needle-related adverse reactions were reported to be rare. The incidence of adverse events raged from 6.71%–8.6% and the incidence of serious adverse events was stated to be approximately 0.001%, but information on what was considered serious adverse events was not provided (Xu et al. 2023).

As per the five relevant SRs reporting adverse events included in the overview of acupuncture in children (Yang et al. 2015), the adverse reactions that were described for children include superficial bleeding (2 SRs) and mild pain (1 SR) as well as crying (2 SRs), painful bi-auricular stimulation (1 SR), eczema (1 SR) and heat or swelling while pressing (1 SR). The frequency of these adverse events was unclear. In four SRs, the relevance between adverse events and acupuncture was unclear, and one found no relevance.

2.4.3 The quality of the evidence map and overview of SRs acupuncture

The evidence map of SRs (Xu et al. 2023) scored 11 out of 11 on the relevant critical appraisal checklist and was therefore deemed to be of high quality. The overview of SRs (Yang et al. 2015) scored 10 out of 11, and the identified weakness was not judged to be critical for the purposes of the present review, so the overall quality was considered to be high. More detail can be found in Table 16 in Section 6.3.

2.4.4 Bottom line summary for acupuncture

Evidence from one high quality evidence map of 535 SRs (Xu et al. 2023) described a wide range of complications and adverse reactions experienced by individuals (mainly adults) who had undergone acupuncture. Microbiological complications included skin infections, local or systemic infections, pulmonary infections, urinary system infections, and otherwise unspecified infections. The most commonly described non-microbiological complications were skin-related adverse effects such as skin allergy reactions, haematoma, and induration. The incidence of serious adverse events was low at 0.001%. The countries where the procedures took place were not reported.

Evidence from one high quality overview of reviews (Yang et al. 2015) described the commonly reported clinical presentations and adverse events experienced by children who have undergone acupuncture and included instances of pain and bleeding as well as eczema, heat, and swelling. The countries where the procedures took place were not reported.

Infections reported in primary studies published since 2015 included skin infection and unspecified infection. The types of infection were not stated.

2.5.1 Overview of the evidence base on electrolysis

The searches did not identify any SRs that focused on electrolysis. Additional searches for primary research identified one case report (Morand et al. 2015) – see Table 15. The case was of a 35-year-old female from Canada. No further details were reported.

2.5.2 Physical health risks associated with electrolysis

A diagnosis of cutaneous sarcoidosis (non-microbiological reaction) was described in the case report by Morand et al. (2015) of a patient who had been receiving electrolysis for many years.

2.5.3 The quality of the studies on electrolysis

The single identified case report of electrolysis was rated six out of eight on the JBI critical appraisal checklist for case reports (Morand et al. 2015). It lost points because the patient’s history was not clearly described and presented as a timeline and because adverse events or unanticipated events during treatment were not identified and described. More detail can be found in Table 17 in Section 6.3.

2.5.4 Bottom line summary for electrolysis

One case report described a non-microbiological complication (cutaneous sarcoidosis). The country where the procedure took place was Canada.