MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091340359 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4668

Effectiveness of Dry Needling for Upper-Quarter Myofascial Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2091340359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David M. Kietrys, Kerstin M. Palombaro, Erica Azzaretto, Richard Hubler, Bret Schaller, J. Mathew Schlussel, Mary G Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDry needlingMeta-analysisMyofascial painMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Myofascial pain syndromePhysical therapyMusculoskeletal painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAcupunctureAlternative medicineInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is associated with hyperalgesic zones in muscle called myofascial trigger points. When palpated, active myofascial trigger points cause local or referred symptoms, including pain. Dry needling involves inserting an acupuncture-like needle into a myofascial trigger point, with the goal of reducing pain and restoring range of motion. OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence regarding the effectiveness of dry needling to reduce pain in patients with MPS of the upper quarter. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed using the key word dry needling. Articles identified with the search were screened for the following inclusion criteria: human subjects, randomized controlled trial (RCT), dry needling intervention group, and MPS involving the upper quarter. The RCTs that met these criteria were assessed and scored for internal validity using the MacDermid Quality Checklist. Four separate meta-analyses were performed: (1) dry needling compared to sham or control immediately after treatment, (2) dry needling compared to sham or control at 4 weeks, (3) dry needling compared to other treatments immediately after treatment, and (4) dry needling compared to other treatments at 4 weeks. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 246 articles. Twelve RCTs were ultimately selected. The methodological quality scores ranged from 23 to 40 points, with a mean of 34 points (scale range, 0-48; best possible score, 48). The findings of 3 studies that compared dry needling to sham or placebo treatment provided evidence that dry needling can immediately decrease pain in patients with upper-quarter MPS, with an overall effect favoring dry needling. The findings of 2 studies that compared dry needling to sham or placebo treatment provided evidence that dry needling can decrease pain after 4 weeks in patients with upper-quarter MPS, although a wide confidence interval for the overall effect limits the impact of the effect. Findings of studies that compared dry needling to other treatments were highly heterogeneous, most likely due to variance in the comparison treatments. There was evidence from 2 studies that lidocaine injection may be more effective in reducing pain than dry needling at 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: Based on the best current available evidence (grade A), we recommend dry needling, compared to sham or placebo, for decreasing pain immediately after treatment and at 4 weeks in patients with upper-quarter MPS. Due to the small number of high-quality RCTs published to date, additional well-designed studies are needed to support this recommendation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1a-.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations322
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207