The effectiveness of superficial versus deep dry needling or acupuncture for reducing pain and disability in individuals with spine-related painful conditions: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of deep versus superficial dry needling or acupuncture on pain and disability for spine-related painful conditions. A secondary purpose was to account for the differences of needling location in relation to the painful area. Methods: This PROSPERO (#CRD42018106237) registered review found 691 titles through a multi-database search. Following a comprehensive search, 12 manuscripts were included in the systematic review and 10 in the meta-analysis. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain and disability. Results: The included studies demonstrated an unclear to high risk of bias recommending a cautious interpretation of the results. A consistent effect supporting deep needling over superficial with an SMD of 0.585 [0.335, 0.835], p < 0.001 from 10 articles for pain but a non-significant effect of 0.197 [-0.066, 0.461], p = 0.14 from 2 studies for disability. A temporal examination was similar for effects on pain with an SMD of 0.450 [0.104, 0.796] immediately, 0.711 [0.375, 1.048] short-term (1 to 11 weeks), and 0.470 [0.135, 0.805] for time-points ≥12 weeks. Regionally, there was a greater effect needling the area of pain locally (SMD = 0.754) compared to remotely (SMD = 0.501). Discussion: Statistically significant between-group differences were observed favoring deep needling over superficial. Both superficial and deep needling resulted in clinically meaningful changes in pain scores over time. However, differences between groups may not be clinically meaningful. More high-quality trials are needed to better estimate the effect size of deep versus superficial needling while controlling for location and depth of the lesion. Level of evidence: 1a.

A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain, disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the within and between-group effects of segmental and distal dry needling (DN) without needle manipulation to a semi-standardized non-thrust manipulation (NTM) targeting the symptomatic spinal level for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods: Sixty-five patients with NSLBP were randomized to receive either DN (n = 30) or NTM (n = 35) for six sessions over 3 weeks. Outcomes collected included the oswestry disability index (ODI), patient specific functional scale (PSFS), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT). At discharge, patients perceived recovery was assessed. Results: A two-way mixed model ANOVA demonstrated that there was no group*time interaction for PSFS (p = 0.26), ODI (p = 0.57), NPRS (p = 0.69), and PPT (p = 0.51). There was significant within group effects for PSFS (3.1 [2.4, 3.8], p = 0.018), ODI (14.5% [10.0%, 19.0%], p = 0.015), NPRS (2.2 [1.5, 2.8], p = 0.009), but not for PPT (3.3 [0.5, 6.0], p = 0.20). Discussion: The between-group effects were neither clinically nor statistically significant. The within group effects were both significant and exceeded the reported minimum clinically important differences for the outcomes tools except the PPT. DN and NTM produced comparable outcomes in this sample of patients with NSLBP. Level of evidence: 1b.