Trial reportBMJ open2020
Comparing two dry needling interventions for plantar heel pain: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Comparative Study of Two Dry Needling Interventions for Plantar Heel Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial
The Role of Therapeutic Ultrasound in Comparison With Electrical Dry Needling in Chronic Low Back Patients Post Cesarean Section
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term efficacy of physical interventions for lateral epicondylitis: a network meta-analysis based on multidimensional evaluation of pain and function.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- The effectiveness of dry needling for plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of different intensities of percutaneous electrolysis for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Toward an algorithm of percutaneous microelectrolysis: a randomized clinical trial on invasive techniques.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2025Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Two Dry Needling Interventions for Plantar Heel Pain: A Secondary Analysis of an RCT.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- The consistency of reporting adverse events associated with dry needling: a narrative review.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Percutaneous Electrolysis for Musculoskeletal Disorders Management in Rehabilitation Settings: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intratissue percutaneous electrolysis and deep dry needling compared to a standard physiotherapy protocol in the treatment of whiplash syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Deep Dry Needling versus Percutaneous Electrolysis in Ultrasound-Guided Treatment of Active Myofascial Trigger Points of the Levator Scapulae in Short-Term: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Analyzing the Interaction between Clinical, Neurophysiological and Psychological Outcomes Underlying Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Network Analysis Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) versus percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) for improving the level of pain, function and quality of life (QoL) of patients suffering from plantar heel pain (PHP) provoked by myofascial trigger points.
designA prospective, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment.
settingA single treatment facility in the State of Kuwait.
participants118 participants were screened for eligibility. Of these, 102 participants were enrolled (30 men (49.5±8.9 years) and 72 women (48.1±8.8 years)) and 68 of them completed the trial.
interventionsTwo parallel groups, one study arm received DN and a stretching protocol whereas the other arm received percutaneous needling electrolysis with a stretching protocol. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Foot Pain domain of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, with 13 questions related to foot health-related domains. Secondary outcome measures included the 0-10 numerical rating scale pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, performed before and after each treatment session. In addition, QoL was measured using the EuroQoL-5 dimensions. All measurements were taken at baseline, at 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks.
resultsFoot Pain domain improved at all time points for DN group (p<0.001; 29.7 (17.8 to 41.5)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.001; 32.7 (18.3 to 47.0)), without significant differences between groups. Pain VAS scores decreased at all time points for both DN (p<0.001; -2.6 (-4.0 to -1.2)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.001; -3.0 (-4.5 to -1.6)). QoL improved at 4 weeks for both DN (p<0.01; 0.15 (0.5 to 0.25)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.01; 0.09 (0.01 to 0.17)) and at 8 and 52 weeks for the PNE group (p<0.01; 0.10 (0.02 to 0.18)), with significant differences between groups for the QoL at 52 weeks (p<0.05; 0.10 (0.01 to 0.18)). There were two small haematomas in the PNE group and one in the DN group. No serious adverse events were reported.
conclusionsBoth PNE and DN were effective for PHP management, reducing mean and maximum pain since the first treatment session, with long lasting effects (52 weeks) and significant differences between groups in the case of QoL at 52 weeks in favour of the PNE group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03236779.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.