ReviewPain reports2024
Dry needling for orofacial pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Review in Pain reports, 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.
- Needling as a Potential and Novel Treatment for Skin Ischemia following Filler-Induced Vascular Occlusion: A Case Series.Case reports in dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orofacial pain (OFP) is an ache in the front part of the head and typically has musculoskeletal, dental, neural, or sinogenic origin. Dry needling (DN) is the insertion of a solid sterile fine needle through the skin aimed at deactivating the myofascial trigger points has extensively been studied in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence base for the effectiveness of DN for OFP. We searched Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science (from their respective inceptions to February 2024) for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of DN in patients with OFP. Studies with individuals suffering from cervicogenic or tension type headaches as well as observational studies were excluded. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and severity; secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, and adverse effects. The review adhered to the methods described by in the Cochrane Handbook. Twenty-four RCTs with a total of 1,318 patients suffering from OFP were included. Most had an unclear or high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low for all comparisons and outcomes. A meta-analysis suggested that, compared with usual care alone, DN + usual care had no effect on pain intensity (visual analogue scale) (standardized mean difference = -1.89, 95% confidence intervals -5.81 to 2.02, very low certainty evidence) at follow-ups of up to 6 weeks. There is little reliable evidence for the effectiveness of DN in reducing OFP. Future, larger, more rigorous studies might reduce the existing uncertainties.
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.