ReviewJournal of pain research2023
Bibliometric and Visual Analysis in the Field of Dry Needling for Myofascial Pain Syndrome from 2000 to 2022.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Global trends of acupuncture clinical research on analgesia from 2010 to 2023: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- A dual-database bibliometric analysis on dry needling for pain: Global trends and hotspots from web of science core collection and Scopus (2006-2025).Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Ultrasound features of myofascial trigger points: a multimodal study integrating preliminary histological findings from the upper trapezius.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Expert Consensus on Dry Needling Practices for Headache: An International Delphi Study Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Knowledge mapping of acupoint sensitization and acupoint specificity: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence has shown that dry needling (DN) is effective for myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). However, bibliometrics has rarely been used to analyze the literature related to DN for MPS. The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic overview of global frontiers and research hotspots of DN in the treatment of MPS from 2000 to 2022. Methods: A search was conducted on Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) for literature on DN for MPS from 2000 to 2022. Based on the basic information provided by WoS CC, CiteSpace software was used to conduct bibliometric analysis of the countries, institutions, categories, journals, authors, references and keywords involved in this topic. Results: A total of 458 papers were obtained, with the number of publications increasing over time. Conclusion: The current status and trends in clinical research of DN for MPS are revealed according to the results of this bibliometric study, which may facilitate researchers to identify hot topics and new directions for future research.
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.