ArticleCureus2026
CARE-DN: An Extension of the CARE Guidelines for Dry Needling Case Reports.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Dry needling (DN) is widely used in musculoskeletal and pain management, yet published DN case reports vary substantially in structure, terminology, and completeness, limiting reproducibility and interpretation. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus-based reporting guideline extension for DN case reports, as an extension of the CARE (CAse REport) guidelines. Methods A protocol was registered a priori on the Open Science Framework (OSF). A two-round modified electronic Delphi process was conducted with an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians, researchers, and educators experienced in DN and acupuncture. Proposed DN-specific reporting items were generated through structured mapping of the CARE checklist and relevant literature. In Round 1, panellists rated item relevance and provided qualitative feedback. In Round 2, revised items were re-evaluated using a predefined consensus threshold of ≥80% agreement for ratings of 4 or 5 on a five-point relevance scale. An online implementation of the final checklist was subsequently developed and subjected to usability evaluation. Reporting of the Delphi study was guided by the Conducting and REporting of DElphi Studies (CREDES) guideline. Results In total, 13 voting panellists from seven countries participated, with 12 completing Round 2. Overall, 16 DN-specific items achieved the predefined consensus threshold and were integrated into the final CARE-DN checklist. The items address treatment specificity, anatomical targeting, procedural characteristics, needle specifications, imaging use, and clinician expertise. Usability evaluation of the online CARE-DN tool indicated favourable ratings for clarity, navigation, and checklist export, supporting feasibility for routine academic and clinical use. Conclusion CARE-DN provides the first consensus-based reporting guideline extension specifically for DN case reports. By supplementing the original CARE framework with DN-specific items, CARE-DN promotes transparent, accurate, and reproducible reporting. The checklist and accompanying online tool are intended to support authors, reviewers, and editors in improving the quality and interpretability of DN case literature.
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.