PainSci summary of Kietrys 2013?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★★☆4-star ratings are for bigger/better studies and reviews published in more prestigious journals, with only quibbles. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
Body In Mind evaluated this review of dry needling for myofascial pain and concluded that the evidence does not make the grade: “Dry needling is not convincingly superior to sham/control conditions and possibly worse than comparative interventions … ” Bummer.
The reviewers themselves came to a different conclusion based on their data: they “recommend (Grade A) dry needling, compared to sham or placebo, for decreasing pain (immediately after treatment and at 4 weeks).” But digging into the actual results, it doesn’t take me long to start rolling my eyes and sympathizing with BIM’s opinion: there’s not much here.
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is associated with hyperalgesic zones in muscle called myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). When palpated, active MTrPs cause local or referred symptoms including pain. Dry needling involves inserting an acupuncture-like needle into a MTrP with the goal of reducing pain and restoring range of motion.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the evidence regarding the effectiveness of DN in reducing pain for patients with MPS of the upper quarter.
METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed using the keyword "dry needling." Articles identified with the search were screened for the following inclusion criteria: human subjects, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), dry needling intervention group, and MPS involving the upper quarter. The RCTs that met our criteria were assessed and scored for internal validity with the MacDermid Quality Checklist. Four separate meta-analyses were performed: (1) dry needling compared to sham or control, immediate effects; (2) dry needling compared to sham or control, 4 weeks; (3) dry needling compared to other treatments, immediate effects; (4) dry needling compared to other treatments, 4 weeks.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 246 articles. Twelve RCTs were ultimately selected. The methodological quality scores ranged from 23 to 40 points, with a mean of 34 points (scale range 0-48, best possible score-48). Findings of 3 studies that compared dry needling to sham or placebo treatment provide evidence that dry needling can immediately decrease pain in patients with upper quarter MPS, with an overall effect favoring dry needling. Findings of 2 studies that compared dry needling to sham or placebo treatment provide evidence that dry needling can decrease pain after 4 weeks in patients with upper quarter MPS, although a wide confidence interval for the overall effect limits the impact of the effect. Findings of studies that compared dry needling to other treatments were highly heterogeneous, most likely due to variance in the comparison treatments. There is evidence from 2 studies that lidocaine injection may be more effective in reducing pain than dry needling at 4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the best current available evidence, we recommend (Grade A) dry needling, compared to sham or placebo, for decreasing pain (immediately after treatment and at 4 weeks) in patients with upper quarter MPS. Due to the small number of high quality RCTs published to date, additional well-designed studies are needed to inform future evolution of this recommendation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1a-.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 11 June 2013. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4668.
Specifically regarding Kietrys 2013:
These four articles on PainScience.com cite Kietrys 2013 as a source:
- PS Trigger Points & Myofascial Pain Syndrome — A guide to the unfinished science of muscle pain, with reviews of every theory and self-treatment and therapy option
- PS Complete Guide to Headaches — Detailed, readable self-help for tension headaches and other common musculoskeletal headaches
- PS Review of The Trigger Point Therapy Workbook — A popular book that promises too much and ignores recent science and controversies, which alienates many physicians and sets patients up for disappointment
- PS Frozen Shoulder Guide — An extremely detailed & readable guide to one of the strangest of all common musculoskeletal problems, for both patients and pros
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- The neck and headaches. Bogduk 2014 Neurol Clin.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.