ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Comparative Efficacy of Needling and Non-Needling Therapies for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacological therapies for adult myogenic temporomandibular disorders: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison and ranking of interventions for temporomandibular disorders-myofascial pain syndrome: a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Conservative and Minimally Invasive Interventions for Temporomandibular Disorders: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Objective: To compare the efficacy of dry needling therapy (DNT), traditional acupuncture (TAT), acupuncture-based combined therapy (ACT), and other interventions for temporomandibular disorders (TMD), focusing on pain relief, functional improvement, and treatment efficacy. Methods: Following the PICOS framework, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI up to July 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults with TMD. Interventions included seven conservative treatments-TAT, DNT, ACT, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), comprehensive physiotherapy (CPT), pharmacologic injection therapy (PIT), and control interventions (CTRL). Primary outcomes were pain intensity (VAS) and functional indices, and secondary outcomes included maximal mouth opening (MMO) and effective rate. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate comparative efficacy, and risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0. Results: This network meta-analysis included 37 randomized controlled trials with a total of 2581 participants. DNT exhibited the strongest analgesic effect (MD vs control: -1.61, 95% CI: -2.81 to -0.4), outperforming TAT (MD: -1.56) and pharmacological injection (MD: -1.41). ACT showed superior multimodal efficacy: significant reductions in PI (MD vs TAT: -0.13) and CMI, plus the highest treatment efficacy rate (RR: 1.8 vs control). For DI, ACT demonstrated marginal improvement over TAT (MD: -0.065, CI near zero). No intervention significantly improved MMO. Importantly, the pain reduction achieved by DNT and ACT met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for TMD (VAS 0-1.9), indicating clinically meaningful benefit. Cumulative ranking (SUCRA) confirmed DNT and ACT as top-tier for pain and function, respectively. Conclusion: DNT and ACT appear to be the most effective interventions for TMD, offering complementary benefits in pain relief and functional recovery. These findings support their potential inclusion in multimodal management strategies, though interpretation should remain cautious given the predominance of Chinese studies and limited long-term and safety data.
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.