SynthesisPloS one2026
The effectiveness of dry needling at myofascial trigger points for knee disorders: A quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDry needling (DN) targeting myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) has been proposed as a treatment for knee disorders, including knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of DN in improving pain and function in patients with knee disorders.
methodsThis meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261294603). Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from inception to December 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DN targeting MTrPs with sham DN, no intervention, or other active treatments for knee disorders. Primary outcomes were pain intensity measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included functional status assessed by the WOMAC functional subscale and the Kujala Patellofemoral Score. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.
resultsTwenty RCTs (n = 1,234; mean age range: 22-69 years) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, DN significantly reduced knee pain across all pain measures: NPRS (WMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.25 to -0.76; I² = 0.0%), VAS (WMD = -1.19, 95% CI: -1.73 to -0.66; I² = 80.4%), and WOMAC Pain subscale (WMD = -1.76, 95% CI: -2.57 to -0.95; I² = 67.6%), with an overall pooled pain reduction of WMD = -1.25 (95% CI: -1.58 to -0.92; I² = 74.7%). DN also significantly improved knee function as measured by the WOMAC functional subscale (WMD = -6.59, 95% CI: -8.88 to -4.29; I² = 61.6%) and the Kujala Patellofemoral Score (WMD = 6.39, 95% CI: 4.64 to 8.14; I² = 30.1%). Pre-specified sensitivity analyses using standardized mean differences confirmed the robustness of these findings. The overall risk of bias was moderate, with concerns primarily related to inadequate blinding of participants and outcome assessors. The GRADE certainty of evidence was rated as moderate for all primary outcomes.
conclusionDN targeting MTrPs provides significant short-term pain relief and functional improvement in KOA and PFPS, with pain reductions approaching clinically important thresholds. However, substantial heterogeneity, blinding limitations, and short follow-up necessitate cautious interpretation, and high-quality long-term RCTs are needed.
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.