Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35607259›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2023

Lack of standardization in dry needling dosage and adverse event documentation limits outcome and safety reports: a scoping review of randomized clinical trials.

Gary A Kearns, Jean-Michel Brismée, Sean P Riley, Sharon Wang-Price, Thomas Denninger, Margaret Vugrin

Open access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Inferior-Medial Dry Needling at the Thoracolumbar Junction: A Cadaveric Study.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gary A KearnsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Health Professions, Lubbock, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6530-2611
Jean-Michel BrisméeDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, School of Health Professions, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Sean P RileyUniversity of Hartford, Doctor of Physical Therapy Program West Hartford, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8854-8024
Sharon Wang-PriceDoctor of Physical Therapy Program, Texas Women's University, Dallas, TX, USA.
Thomas DenningerSenior Director of Market Research and Development, ATI Physical Therapy, Greenville, SC, USA.
Margaret VugrinTexas Tech University Health Sciences Library, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Texas Tech University · USATI Physical Therapy · USTexas Woman's University · USUniversity of Hartford · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExamine: (1) whether variability in dry needling (DN) dosage affects pain outcomes, (2) if effect sizes are clinically important, and (3) how adverse events (AE) were documented and whether DN safety was determined.

methodsNine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DN in symptomatic musculoskeletal disorders. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Included RCTs met PEDro criteria #1 and scored > 7/10. Data extraction included DN dosage, pain outcome measures, dichotomous AE reporting (yes/no), and AE categorization. Clinically meaningful differences were determined using the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for pain outcomes .

resultsOut of 22 identified RCTs, 11 demonstrated significant between-group differences exceeding the MCID, suggesting a clinically meaningful change in pain outcomes. Nine documented whether AE occurred. Only five provided AEs details and four cited a standard means to report AE. DISCUSSION: There was inconsistency in reporting DN dosing parameters and AE. We could not determine if DN dosing affects outcomes, whether DN consistently produces clinically meaningful changes, or establish optimal dosage. Without more detailed reporting, replication of methods in future investigations is severely limited. A standardized method is lacking to report, classify, and provide context to AE from DN. Without more detailed AE reporting in clinical trials investigating DN efficacy, a more thorough appraisal of relative risk, severity, and frequency was not possible. Based on these inconsistencies, adopting a standardized checklist for reporting DN dosage and AE may improve internal and external validity and the generalizability of results.

Indexed as

Dry NeedlingHumansPainPhysical Therapy ModalitiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReference StandardsdosingDry needlingpainsafetytrigger points

Identifiers

PMID35607259
PMCPMC10013441
OpenAlexW4281396822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.