Comparing dry needling or local acupuncture to various wet needling injection types for musculoskeletal pain and disability. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Systematically evaluate the comparative effectiveness of dry needling (DN) or local acupuncture to various types of wet needling (WN) for musculoskeletal pain disorders (MPD). METHODS: Seven databases (PubMed, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched following PROSPERO registration. Randomized clinical trials were included if they compared DN or local acupuncture with WN for MPD. Primary outcomes were pain and/or disability. The Revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0) assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were selected. Wet Needling types included cortisone (CSI) (N = 5), platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (N = 6), Botox (BoT) (N = 3), and local anesthetic injection (LAI) (N = 12). Evidence was rated as low to moderate quality. Results indicate DN produces similar effects to CSI in the short-medium term and superior outcomes in the long term. In addition, DN produces similar outcomes compared to PRP in the short and long term and similar outcomes as BoT in the short and medium term; however, LAI produces better pain outcomes in the short term. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests the effectiveness of DN to WN injections is variable depending on the injection type, outcome time frame, and diagnosis. In addition, adverse event data were similar but inconsistently reported. PROSPERO Registration: 2019 CRD42019131826Implications for rehabilitationDry needling produces similar effects for pain and disability in the short and medium term compared to cortisone, Botox, and platelet-rich plasma injections. Local anesthetic injection may be more effective at reducing short-term pain.Long-term effects on pain and disability are similar between dry needling and platelet-rich plasma injections, but dry needling may produce better long-term outcomes than cortisone injections.The available adverse event data is similar between dry and wet needling.The conclusions from this study may be beneficial for patients and clinicians for considering risk and cost benefit analyses.

Creation of a risk of harms informed consent form for dry needling: A nominal group technique.

BACKGROUND: When consenting patients to dry needling treatment, it is necessary to inform patients of potential risks of harms. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify elements and framework for an Informed Consent (IC) risk of harm statement to improve patient decision-making. DESIGN: A virtual Nominal Group Technique (vNGT) methodology was used to achieve consensus among participants to identify what needs to be on a consent form, how it should be framed, and what it should state so patients understand the true risks. METHODS: Eligible participants were identified as one of four groups: legal expert, policy expert, dry needling expert, or patient. The vNGT session consisted of 5 rounds of idea generation and final consensus voting which lasted for 2 h. RESULTS: Five individuals consented to participate. Of the 27 original ideas, 22 reached consensus including ones specifically related to a risk of harms statement: identifying risks and discomforts, identify different sensations, and using a classification to order risks by severity. Consensus was achieved with percent agreement of ≥ 80%. The constructed risk of harm statement had a reading level of grade 7 and provided a list of stratified risks associated with dry needling. CONCLUSION: The generated risk of harm statement can be incorporated on IC forms that require disclosure of risks in both the clinical and research setting. Additionally, further elements were identified by panel participants about defining the framework for an IC form outside of the risk of harm statement. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT05560100 (29/09/22).

Identifying which adverse events associated with dry needling should be included for informed consent: A modified e-Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Dry needling (DN) uses a monofilament needle to reduce pain and is performed by various healthcare professions. Due to the invasive needle puncture, adverse events (AEs) have been associated with DN. It is unclear, which AEs should be included in a risk statement for Informed Consent (IC). The purpose of this study was to identify which AEs should be included in a risk statement for IC. METHODS: A three-round e-Delphi study was undertaken using a panel of DN experts. Expert inclusion criteria included: (1) ≥5 years practice performing DN and one of the following secondary criteria: (A) certification in DN; (B) completion of a manual therapy fellowship that included DN training; or (C) ≥1 publication involving the use of DN. Participants rated their level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as either: 1) ≥80% agreement; or 2) ≥70% and <80% agreement with median ≥3, interquartile range ≤1, and standard deviation ≤1. RESULTS: A total of 14 (28%) AEs achieved final consensus in Round 3 for inclusion on IC. Kendall's Coefficient (w) of agreement for Round 2 was 0.213 and improved to 0.349 after Round 3. Wilcoxon rank tests revealed statistically significant changes for 12 of the 50 AEs. CONCLUSION: Consensus was attained for 14 AEs for inclusion on IC. The AEs identified can be used for the development of a shorter, more concise IC risk statement. A total of 93.6% of experts agreed on definitions for AE classification.

Dry Needling for Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors of this systematic review with meta-analysis evaluated the evidence for the effectiveness of various applications of dry needling (DN) combined with other conservative treatments for subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: Six databases (PubMED, CINAHL, Biosis, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched after the study had been registered in PROSPERO. The authors included randomized clinical trials investigating the clinical effects of DN in combination with other conservative interventions for SAPS. Outcomes included pain and disability. RESULTS: Eight studies were selected. All eight studies involving 10 comparisons were included in the analyses (N = 538). A random-effects model was used to analyze between-group effects. Dry needling performed in combination with other conservative interventions produced favorable outcomes at all time points for pain and disability. Standard mean differences ranged from -0.57 (moderate) to -1.29 (large) for pain and -0.69 (moderate) to -1.07 (large) for disability, favoring groups receiving DN in addition to conservative treatment. Four of the eight studies were rated as having unclear or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis suggests that various applications of DN performed with other conservative interventions are more effective than conservative treatment alone for reducing pain and disability in patients with SAPS. Direct-comparison studies are needed to determine whether one application of DN is superior to another.

Immediate effects of superficial dry needling of the trigeminal nerve innervation field for participants with cervicogenic headache. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache (CGH) is a common condition with a neuroanatomical basis involving the trigeminal nerve. Dry needling (DN) is a safe and effective treatment for CGH but most studies involve deep DN to cervical musculature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate immediate effects of superficial DN of the trigeminal nerve innervation field on numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), flexion-rotation test (FRT), cervical range of motion (AROM), and pain-pressure threshold (PPT) of right (R) and left (L) supraorbital (SO), and right (R) and left (L) greater occipital (GO) nerves in participants with CGH. METHODS: A parallel controlled randomized design involving 30 participants with CGH received either superficial DN (N = 17) or sham DN (N = 13). Participants and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Wilcoxon signed rank analyzed within-group effects and Mann-Whitney U analyzed between-group. RESULTS: Statistically significant between-group differences were observed for NPRS (P < .001) and AROM (P < .006) favoring DN and were clinically meaningful. Right and left Flexion rotation tests (FRT) outcomes were non-significant (P = .137) but clinically meaningful. No differences were observed for PPT over: R SO (P = .187); L SO (P = .052); R GO (P = .187); or L GO (P = .052). Between-group effect sizes across variables were moderate to large (0.53-1.4) but confidence intervals were wide. CONCLUSION: Superficial DN targeting the innervation field of the trigeminal nerve improves clinical outcomes in patients with CGH. Only the immediate effects were analyzed and the sample size was small. Larger, longer-term assessments are needed comparing superficial DN of the trigeminal innervation field and other conservative interventions for CGH.

Does early change predict long-term (6 months) improvements in subjects who receive manual therapy for low back pain?

Early change is commonly assessed for manual therapy interventions and has been used to determine treatment appropriateness. However, current studies have only explored the relationship of between or within-session changes and short-/medium-term outcomes. The goal of this study was to determine whether pain changes after two weeks of pragmatic manual therapy could predict those participants with chronic low back pain who demonstrate continued improvements at 6-month follow-up. This study was a retrospective observational design. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed using a 33% and a 50% pain change to predict improvement. Those who experienced a ≥33% pain reduction by 2 weeks had 6.98 (95% CI = 1.29, 37.53) times higher odds of 50% improvement on the GRoC and 4.74 (95% CI = 1.31, 17.17) times higher odds of 50% improvement on the ODI (at 6 months). Subjects who reported a ≥50% pain reduction at 2 weeks had 5.98 (95% CI = 1.56, 22.88) times higher odds of a 50% improvement in the GRoC and 3.99 (95% CI = 1.23, 12.88) times higher odds of a 50% improvement in the ODI (at 6 months). Future studies may investigate whether a change in plan of care is beneficial for patients who are not showing early improvement predictive of a good long-term outcome.

The addition of cervical unilateral posterior-anterior mobilisation in the treatment of patients with shoulder impingement syndrome: a randomised clinical trial.

Shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) is a complex, multi-factorial problem that is treated with a variety of different conservative options. One conservative option that has shown effectiveness is manual therapy to the thoracic spine. Another option, manual therapy to the cervical spine, has been studied only once with good results, evaluating short-term outcomes, in a small sample size. The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefit of neck manual therapy for patients with SIS. The study was a randomised, single blinded, clinical trial where both groups received pragmatic, evidence-based treatment to the shoulder and one group received neck manual therapy. Subjects with neck pain were excluded from the study. Comparative pain, disability, rate of recovery and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) measures were analyzed on the 68 subjects seen over an average of 56.1 days (standard deviation (SD)=55.4). Eighty-six percent of the sample reported an acceptable change on the PASS at discharge. There were no between-groups differences in those who did or did not receive neck manual therapy; however, both groups demonstrated significant within-groups improvements. On average both groups improved 59.7% (SD=25.1) for pain and 53.5% (SD=40.2) for the Quick Disabilities of the Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) from baseline. This study found no value when neck manual therapy was added to the treatment of SIS. Reasons may include the lack of therapeutic dosage provided for the manual therapy approach or the lack of benefit to treating the neck in subjects with SIS who do not have concomitant neck problems.

Factor structure and concurrent/convergent validity of the modified somatic perception questionnaire and pain beliefs instrument.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to create a parsimonious combination of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) and the Pain Beliefs Screening Instrument (PBSI) through factorial structural analysis and to investigate the associations of the new scale (if unique) to disability, health condition, and quality of life report in patients with neck and low back pain scheduled for spine fusion surgery. METHODS: Factor analysis was used to refine all items within the 2 scales to 4 distinct factors: (1) somatic complaints of the head/neck, (2) somatic complaints of the gastrointestinal symptom, (3) pain beliefs and fear, and (4) self perception of serious problems. Each factor was assessed for concurrent validity with other well-established tools including the Deyo comorbidity index, the Short Form (SF)-36 mental and physical component subscales, and the Oswestry and Neck Disability Indices (ODI/NDI). RESULTS: The PBSI was fairly to moderately correlated with assessment tools of quality of life (SF-36) and disability assessment (ODI/NDI). Some of the items in the factor 1 from the MSPQ were slightly associated with the Deyo comorbidity index but not with the ODI/NDI. CONCLUSIONS: The items from the MSPQ failed to associate with measures of quality of life and disability and thus may provide only marginal value when assessing the multidimensional aspects associated with neck and low back pain. The PBSI has moderate correlation with disability assessments. Neither tool was found to strongly correlate with disability measures or with SF-36 scales (mental and physical component subscales). Additional tools may be needed to further identify the dimensions associated with chronic pain patients.