Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37546088›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

The Impact of Dry Needling With Electrical Stimulation on Pain and Disability in Patients With Musculoskeletal Shoulder Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Anthony N Baumann, Andrew Fiorentino, Caleb J Oleson, John Martin Leland

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07015281 (Dry Needling With Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation + Exercises Verus Therapeutic Execises in Patients With Non-specific Chronic Neck Pain), which is not on this 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07015281 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Dry Needling With Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation + Exercises Verus Therapeutic Execises in Patients With Non-specific Chronic Neck Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad de AlmeriaRan2025 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsNeck PainArmsDry Needling with Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS) and Therapeutic Exercises., Therapeutic Exercise
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

4 authors.

Anthony N BaumannDepartment of Rehabilitation Services, University Hospitals, Cleveland, USA.
Andrew FiorentinoCollege of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, USA.
Caleb J OlesonCollege of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, USA.
John Martin LelandDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospitals, Cleveland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal shoulder pain (MSP) is a common orthopedic condition frequently treated by orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists in an interdisciplinary manner. Dry needling with electrical stimulation (DNES) is an increasingly popular intervention used for the conservative treatment of MSP during physical therapy. To date, no systematic review and meta-analysis have examined the impact of DNES on outcomes in patients with MSP. This study aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of DNES in patients with MSP to improve patient outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from database inception to March 10, 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies with DNES as an intervention, recorded patient outcomes, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. DNES with or without conventional physical therapy (CPT) was compared to CPT alone, which included interventions such as exercise, manual therapy, dry needling without electrical stimulation, and/or interferential current. A total of five RCTs were analyzed from 144 articles retrieved on the initial search. Included patients (n=342) had an average age of 48.75 ± 5.92 years, an average follow-up time of 3.40 ± 1.42 months, and 184 patients receiving DNES with or without CPT. Patients treated with DNES with or without CPT (n=163) had a frequency-weighted mean decrease in pain of 4.8 ± 1.4 points, whereas patients treated with CPT alone (n=158) had a frequency-weighted mean decrease in pain of 3.3 ± 2.2 points. For meta-analysis of pain outcomes (n=321 total patients), DNES with or without CPT improved pain by 1.40/10 points as compared to CPT alone with no significant difference between groups (p=0.203; Cohen's d effect size (ES): 4.352; 95% CI: -2.343, 11.048). Patients treated with DNES with or without CPT (n=118) had a frequency-weighted mean decrease in disability of 34.7 ± 9.1 points. In contrast, patients treated with CPT alone (n=115) had a frequency-weighted decrease in disability of 20.1 ± 5.0 points. For meta-analysis of disability outcomes (n=233 total patients), DNES with or without CPT did not have a significant improvement in disability as compared to CPT alone (p=0.282; Cohen's d ES: 0.543; 95% CI: -0.446, 1.532). No serious adverse effects were reported for patients treated with DNES with or without CPT or CPT alone. DNES with or without CPT may significantly improve pain and disability in patients with MSP. However, DNES with or without CPT does not provide statistically significant improvements in pain or disability compared to CPT alone. Furthermore, DNES appears to be a safe intervention for MSP.

Indexed as

dry needlingelectrical stimulationmusculoskeletalorthopedicsphysical therapyshoulder pain

Identifiers

PMID37546088
PMCPMC10402652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.