Benefits of dry needling of myofascial trigger points on autonomic function and photoelectric plethysmography in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a condition characterised by the presence of chronic, widespread musculoskeletal pain, low pain threshold and hyperalgesia. Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) may worsen symptoms in patients with FMS. Objective: The purpose of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the effects of dry needling and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on pain intensity, heart rate variability, galvanic response and oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ). Methods: 74 subjects with FMS were recruited and randomly assigned to either the dry needling group or the TENS group. Outcomes measures (pain intensity, heart rate variability, galvanic skin response, SpO 2 and photoplethysmography) were evaluated at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment. 2×2 mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed. Results: The mixed-model ANOVAs showed significant differences between groups for the sensory dimension of pain, affective dimension of pain, total dimension of pain, visual analogue scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) (P=0.001). ANOVAs also showed that significant differences between groups were achieved for very low frequency power of heart rate variability (P=0.008) and low frequency power (P=0.033). There were no significant differences in dry needling versus TENS groups on the spectral analysis of the photoplethysmography and SpO 2 . Conclusions: This trial showed that application of dry needling therapy and TENS reduced pain attributable to MTrPs in patients with FMS, with greater improvements reported in the dry needling group across all dimensions of pain. Additionally, there were between-intervention differences for several parameters of heart rate variability and galvanic skin responses. Trial registration number: NCT02393352
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".