SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Effects of dry needling on recovery, neuromuscular function, and injury outcomes in sports athletes: a systematic review targeting the neck and related regions.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
Background: Dry needling (DN) is used in sports medicine for myofascial pain, injury and recovery, but athlete-specific effects over time are uncertain. Objective: To synthesize evidence on DN applied to cervical and related upper-quarter regions in athletes, distinguishing (i) symptomatic athlete trials from (ii) post-exertion recovery trials, and to summarize injury-related outcomes only when prospectively reported. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science searched 11 Feb 2026. Study selection: Trials/prospective studies in athletes comparing DN (alone or add-on) with sham/no intervention or active comparators. Methods: Two authors independently screened/extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2; ROBINS-I). Results: Eight studies were included. In symptomatic overhead/throwing athletes, DN improved pain and shoulder ROM immediately versus no treatment in one trial, while several trials showed no differences versus active comparators or sham. Recovery trials showed inconsistent differences in hemodynamic indices and inflammatory markers, and their short follow-up and proxy endpoints limit inference about next-session performance, training continuity, or injury risk. Conclusion: DN may provide short-term symptom modulation in sport athletes. Evidence for consistent recovery/readiness enhancement, performance benefit, or injury prevention remains highly uncertain and is constrained by proxy outcome selection and short time windows. Registration: OSF osf.io/fsg6w (11 February 2026). Systematic review registration: OSF (Open Science Framework; ID: osf.io/fsg6w (11 February 2026).
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.