Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36431093›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Immediate Effects of Dry Needling on Central Pain Processing and Skin Conductance in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Marcos José Navarro-Santana, Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, Guillermo Romanos-Castillo, Victor C Hernández-González, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva, Gustavo Plaza-Manzano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Marcos José Navarro-SantanaFaculty of Health, Universidad Católica de Ávila, C/Canteros, s/n, 05005 Ávila, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6065-9283
Juan Antonio Valera-CaleroVALTRADOFI Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Villanueva de la Cañada, Villanueva de la Cañada, 28692 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3379-8392
Guillermo Romanos-CastilloDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Villanueva de la Cañada, 28692 Madrid, Spain.
Victor C Hernández-GonzálezDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Villanueva de la Cañada, 28692 Madrid, Spain.
César Fernández-de-Las-PeñasDepartment of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3772-9690
Ibai López-de-Uralde-VillanuevaDepartment of Radiology, Rehabilitation and Physiotherapy, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Gustavo Plaza-ManzanoDepartment of Radiology, Rehabilitation and Physiotherapy, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1596-5027
Camilo José Cela University · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESCatholic University of Ávila · ESUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although current evidence supports the use of dry needling for improving some clinical outcomes in people with neck pain, no previous research explored the effects of dry needling on the central processing of pain and autonomic nervous system in this population. Therefore, this clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of real and sham dry needling on autonomic nervous system function, pain processing as well as clinical and psychological variables in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain. A double-blinded randomized clinical trial including 60 patients with neck pain was conducted. Patients were randomized to the real needling (n = 30) or sham needling (n = 30) group. Skin conductance (SC), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM) as well as pain intensity, related-disability, catastrophism, and kinesiophobia levels were assessed by an assessor blinded to the allocation intervention. The results did not find significant group * time interactions for most outcomes, except for the global percentage of change of SC values (mean: F = 35.90, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.459; minimum: F = 33.99, p = 0.839, ηp2 = 0.371; maximum: F = 24.71, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.037) and PPTs at C5-C6 joint in the same side of needling (F = 9.982; p = 0.003; = 0.147), in favor of the dry needling group. Although the proportion of subjects experiencing moderate to large self-perceived improvement after the intervention was significantly higher (X2 = 8.297; p = 0.004) within the dry needling group (n = 18, 60%) than in the sham needling group (n = 7, 23.3%), both groups experienced similar improvements in clinical and psychological variables. Our results suggested that dry needling applied to patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain produced an immediate decrease in mechanical hyperalgesia at local sites and produced an increase in skin conductance as compared with sham needling. No changes in central pain processing were observed. A single session of sham or real dry needling was similarly effective for decreasing related disability, pain intensity, catastrophism, and kinesiophobia levels. Further studies are needed to better understand the clinical implications of autonomic nervous system activation on central sensitization and pain processing in the long-term after the application of dry needling.

Indexed as

conditioned pain modulationdry needlingneck painpressure pain thresholdssham needlingskin conductancetemporal summation

Identifiers

PMID36431093
PMCPMC9694175
OpenAlexW4308581303

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.