Trial reportJournal of pain research2026
Myofascial Trigger Point-Augmented Acupuncture vs Conventional Acupuncture for Early- to Mid-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Symptomatic adjacent-segment epidural hematoma after UNSES for L4/5 lumbar disc herniation: a case report and narrative literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Myofascial Trigger Point-Augmented Acupuncture vs Conventional Acupuncture for Early- to Mid-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial [Letter].Journal of pain research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether adding myofascial trigger point (MTrP)-targeted dry needling to conventional acupuncture improves short-term pain and function response in adults with early- to mid-stage knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Patients and methods: In this randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center trial, 106 adults with Kellgren-Lawrence grade II-III KOA were assigned 1:1 to conventional acupuncture or the same regimen plus 3 individualized MTrP-targeted insertions. Both groups received 10 sessions over 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the week-2 composite responder rate, defined as a ≥2-point reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) pain and a ≥6-point improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function. Secondary outcomes included pain, function, pressure pain threshold (PPT), gait, acceptability, and safety. Results: Of 106 randomized participants, 97 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. At week 2, 47 of 49 participants (95.9%) in the MTrP-augmented group and 42 of 48 (87.5%) in the conventional group were responders (risk difference, 8.4 percentage points [95% CI, -2.5 to 19.3]; risk ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.24]; P =0.13). Exploratory secondary analyses without comprehensive multiplicity adjustment favored MTrP augmentation for VAS pain and WOMAC outcomes. The week-2 between-group difference in gait-speed change was 0.072 m/s (95% CI, 0.040 to 0.103; nominal P <0.001), and group-by-time interactions occurred at 6 of 7 shared peri-knee PPT sites. At week 2, needling pain was 2.45 points higher and acceptability was lower with MTrP augmentation (36.7% vs 72.9%). No serious adverse events or related withdrawals occurred. Conclusion: Adding MTrP-targeted dry needling to conventional acupuncture did not significantly improve the prespecified primary responder outcome; therefore, superiority was not established. Exploratory findings suggested possible incremental benefits through week 14, but these should be weighed against greater procedural pain and substantially lower short-term acceptability.
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.