ReviewJournal of physical therapy science2025
Design of dry-needling and acupuncture sham devices: an illustrative review.
Review in Journal of physical therapy science, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dry needling and acupuncture are non-pharmacological therapies for managing musculoskeletal pain. Although they noticeably differ in their application and proposed rationale, the common ground between the two therapies is the invasive soft-tissue needling. Over the past 30 years, researchers have developed and used various forms of sham/placebo needling devices in randomized controlled clinical trials for assessing a causation-based relationship between needling into myofascial trigger points (dry needling) or acupoints (acupuncture) and purported therapeutic outcomes. However, no clear guidelines exist for choosing a sham needling device for research purposes. Based on the English literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, J-STAGE, and Taiwan Electronic Periodicals, the present illustrative review identified five forms of sham dry-needling/acupuncture needle devices that had been validated and/or used in clinical trials. As of today, however, there is a lack of standardization in sham needling devices, making it difficult to compare results across different studies.
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.