Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32898170›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Lyndal Solomons, Jenny J Y Lee, Margaret Bruce, Lynita D White, Alex Scott

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Therapeutic effects following extracorporeal shock wave therapy for insertional and non-insertional Achilles tendinopathy.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lyndal SolomonsDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Jenny J Y LeeCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Margaret BruceKinetic Rehabilitation Centre, North Vancouver, Canada.
Lynita D WhiteDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Alex ScottDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0366-8404
University of British Columbia · CAVancouver Coastal Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe insertion of filiform needles intramuscularly (a.k.a. intramuscular stimulation/dry needling) has been suggested as a possible treatment for various painful musculoskeletal conditions. Our aim was to answer the question, is intramuscular stimulation more effective than sham intramuscular stimulation/dry needling for the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy?

methods52 participants with persistent midportion Achilles tendinopathy began and 46 completed one of three treatment protocols which were randomly assigned: (G3) a 12-week rehabilitation program of progressive tendon loading plus intramuscular stimulation (n = 25), (G2) the same rehabilitation program but with sham intramuscular stimulation (n = 19), or (G1) a reference group of rehabilitation program alone (as an additional control) (n = 8). The a priori primary outcome measure was change in VISA-A score at 12 weeks-VISA-A was also measured at 6 weeks, and at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include the proportion of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (%), dorsiflexion range of motion (degrees), and tendon thickness (mm).

resultsThe study retention was 94% at 12 weeks and 88% at 1 year. VISA-A score improved in all three groups over time (p<0.0001), with no significant difference among the three groups in VISA-A score at the start of the study (mean ± SD: G3 59 ± 13, G2 57 ± 17, G1 56 ± 22), at 12 weeks (G3 76 ± 14, G2 76 ± 15, G1 82 ± 11) or at any other timepoint. The percentage of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (i.e. treatment success) was not different after 12 weeks (G3 70%, G2 89%, G1 86% p = 0.94), or at 26 (p = 0.62) or 52 weeks (p = 0.71). No clinically significant effects of intervention group were observed in any of the secondary outcome measures.

conclusionThe addition of intramuscular stimulation to standard rehabilitation for Achilles tendinopathy did not result in any improvement over the expected clinical benefit achieved with exercise-based rehabilitation alone.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesAchilles TendonAdultChronic DiseaseExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRange of Motion, ArticularTendinopathyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32898170
PMCPMC7478532
OpenAlexW3084297672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.