ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
Patient-Perceived Benefits and Adverse Events of Dry Needling.
Article in International journal of sports physical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dry needling (DN) has emerged as a safe and effective physical therapy technique to address neuromusculoskeletal pain and dysfunctions; however, a gap in the literature exists regarding the experience from the patient's perspective, with most studies focusing on clinician-reported outcomes. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate patients' perspectives of self-reported adverse events and clinical outcomes from DN within the first 24 hours following the technique. Study Design: Cross-sectional retrospective study. Methods: From April to May 2022, 123 participants were recruited through word of mouth, university-wide emails, and social media to complete an electronic survey. Inclusion criteria included those >18 years of age and who had received DN in the prior three months by a licensed physical therapist. The survey consisted of three sections: knowledge and experience with DN, location and perceived effects of DN, and participant demographics. Perceived effects focused on localized (e.g., pain, soreness, bruising) and generalized adverse events (e.g., shortness of breath, fatigue, fever), as well as outcomes (pain, gait, strength, mobility). Descriptive statistics were used for participant demographics and item responses. Results: One hundred twenty-three participants completed the electronic survey (77.2% aged 18-50 years; 53.7% female). Soreness (52.0%) and pain (33.0%) were the most reported localized adverse events. Fatigue (21.7%) and headache (15.4%) were the most reported generalized adverse events. Following DN, patient-reported improvements in pain occurred in 73.8% of the selected body regions, while improved mobility occurred in 70.6%, improved strength in 38.5%, and improved gait in 46.2%. Conclusion: Practitioners who utilize DN have a responsibility to communicate the possible benefits and adverse events post-DN. At least one localized event was reported in over 80% of the cases and one generalized adverse event in 40%, while positive improvements in pain or physical impairment occurred 38.5-73.8% of the time. Taken together, patients' self-reported benefits and adverse events in response to DN should both be carefully considered and discussed by practitioners when making clinical decisions about its use as a therapeutic intervention. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.