ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2025
The utilization of dry needling - a survey of contemporary clinical practice within the USA.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDry needling (DN) is a skilled intervention commonly used for pain relief and the management of movement disorders in neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Although systematic reviews indicate its effectiveness, variations in treatment parameters exist. This study surveyed U.S. healthcare professionals who utilize DN, examining their clinical techniques, rationale, and use of electrostimulation.
methodsAn electronic survey was created and distributed via Qualtrics™ to healthcare providers performing DN. The survey link was shared through social media and e-mail, and data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical methods (Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's rho) to identify significant patterns in DN practices.
resultsA total of 1,399 healthcare providers completed the survey, predominantly physical therapists (93.3%) with an average of 13.5 years of clinical experience and 5.2 years in DN. Most worked in outpatient orthopedics (90.3%). Common DN techniques included trigger point needling (95.8%) and deep needling (82.0%), with 44.5% using periosteal pecking. The majority of practitioners used up to 4 needles per session (68.1%), while 63.8% used more than 4. Electro-stimulation (e-stim) was commonly applied, with 62.5% using it after needle insertion and 55.6% combining it with needle manipulation. Differences in techniques were noted between physical and nonphysical therapists, particularly in the practice of leaving needles in place without manipulation.
conclusionThis study highlights the widespread use and evolving methodologies of DN practices in the U.S. noting the integration of electrostimulation and multimodal approaches. It also highlights inconsistencies in treatment parameters, underscoring the need for standardized protocols to enhance clinical effectiveness and research validity. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of various DN techniques and their applications in neurological rehabilitation.
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.