ArticleCureus2024
A Prospective Nonrandomized Comparison of Wet Needling Versus Prolotherapy in Myofascial Pain.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of the short-term effectiveness of myofascial dextrose injection and radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy in myofascial pain syndrome: A prospective, randomized clinical study.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to analyze the difference between prolotherapy and wet needling (WN) for myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) for the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), and MTrP count.
methodsPatients with myofascial pain for 1.5 years were included based on convenience sampling after a pilot study for sample size calculation. The WN group received an injection of bupivacaine 0.5% into the trigger points with WN. Participants in the dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) group received dextrose (25%) plus bupivacaine (0.5%) (1:1) into the same. Outcome measures were recorded at baseline immediate post-injection, one month, three months, and 24 months.
resultsAmong the 200 participants, there was no significant difference in the baseline VAS score between the two groups nor for immediate post-VAS. At three months of follow-up, the mean VAS was 6.34 ± 1.44 in the WN group and 1.99 ± 0.89 in the DPT group (p = 0.03). The mean VAS score significantly changed in both groups but favored the DPT group (p = 0.001) and again at 24 months (p = 0.001). The ODI showed a similar trend favoring the DPT group at all intervals. On correlating the VAS score with the ODI score, a statistically significant correlation was seen at one month, favoring the WN group, and at the end of the third month, favoring the DPT group.
conclusionBoth modalities are effective at one month. At three and 24 months, the DPT was significantly more effective in improving the VAS and ODI.
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.