Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178946›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Ultrasound-guided dry needling versus traditional dry needling for patients with knee osteoarthritis: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Johnson C Y Pang, Amy S N Fu, Stanley K H Lam, B Peng, Allan C L Fu

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

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Johnson C Y PangSchool of Health Sciences, Caritas Institute of Higher Education, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9931-1631
Amy S N FuDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Stanley K H LamThe Hong Kong Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine, Hong Kong, China.
B PengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Allan C L FuDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUChinese University of Hong Kong · HKSaint Francis University · HKUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effect of ultrasound (US)-guided dry needling (DN) with traditional DN in the treatment of pain and dysfunction for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

designA double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

methodsPatients (25 male and 65 female), age 50-80 years diagnosed with KOA were recruited and randomly assigned to one of three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio for intervention: real US-guided DN with exercise therapy (G1), placebo US-guided DN with exercise therapy (G2), and exercise therapy solely (G3). G1 and G2 were blinded to the application of real or placebo US guidance by turning the monitor of US imaging out-of-view from participants' vantage points. The effectiveness of blinding was evaluated by asking the participants whether they had received real-US guided DN. The responses were assessed by Chi-square test. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Knee injury, and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS-pain, KOOS-symptoms, KOOS-quality-of-life (QoL)) were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks by a blinded assessor. Data were analyzed by mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction.

resultsEighty-four participants (61.26±5.57 years) completed the study. G1 achieved significant improvement in VAS at 8 weeks compared to G2 and G3 (G1 vs. G2: MD = -15.61, 95% CI [-25.49, -5.51], p = 0.001; G1 vs. G3: MD = -19.90, 95% CI [-29.71, -10.08], p< 0.001). G1 achieved significant improvement in KOOS-pain at 8 weeks compared to G2 and G3 (G1 vs. G2: MD = 9.76, 95% CI [2.38, 17.14], p = 0.006; G1 vs. G3: MD = 9.48, 95% CI [2.31, 16.66], p = 0.010). KOOS-symptoms and KOOS-QoL were not statistically significant between groups. G2 had no significant difference of the perceptions as G1 with p = 0.128. G2 were successfully blinded to placebo US-guided DN.

conclusionUS-guided DN with exercise therapy may be more effective than traditional DN with exercise therapy or exercise therapy alone in reduce pain of KOA.

Indexed as

Dry NeedlingOsteoarthritis, KneeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography, Interventional

Identifiers

PMID36178946
PMCPMC9524650
OpenAlexW4298087664

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.