ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2025
Comparing Multiple Versus Sustained Insertion Dry Needling Therapy for Myofascial Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the Hong (GH) and sustained insertion (GS) dry needling methods in patients with myofascial neck pain, this experimental study was conducted.
methodsA randomized controlled trial included 30 participants, assigned to either the GH (n=15) or GS (n=15) group. Each group received treatment on either the right or left side, with one side receiving experimental DN and the other receiving control (sham) DN. The GS method involved a single needle insertion per myofascial trigger point for one minute, while the GH method used multiple rapid needle insertions over two minutes without needle retention. Measurements were taken before therapy, 5 minutes post-DN session (post-5min), 24 hours post-session (post-24h), and 7 days post-session (post-7d). Muscle tension (MT) and muscle stiffness (MS) were measured with a myotonometer, pressure pain threshold (PPT) with an algometer, maximum isometric strength (Fmax) with a handheld dynamometer, and transcutaneous perfusion (PU) with laser Doppler flowmetry. Power Doppler Score (PDS) and minor adverse events were also recorded.
resultsResults showed that GH led to significantly higher MT and MS values at post-24h and post-7d (p<0.001). In contrast, GS showed greater PPT and Fmax at post-5min, post-24h, and post-7d (p<0.001). Additionally, GH exhibited higher PU values at post-5min and post-7d (p<0.001), while GS showed higher PDS values at post-5min and post-24h (p<0.001). Conclusion: The GH method resulted in less favorable outcomes in terms of MT and MS, while the GS method showed superior improvements in pain relief and functional recovery.
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.