Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2017
Evidence for Dry Needling in the Management of Myofascial Trigger Points Associated With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Lin, Huang Qiang-Min, Liu Qing-Guang, Thitham Nguyen, Li Li-Hui, Ma Yan-Tao, Zhao Jia-Min
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence of the effectiveness of dry needling of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) associated with low back pain (LBP).
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched until January 2017.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used dry needling as the main treatment and included participants diagnosed with LBP with the presence of MTrPs were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles, scored methodologic quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and functional disability at postintervention and follow-up.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 11 RCTs involving 802 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Results suggested that compared with other treatments, dry needling of MTrPs was more effective in alleviating the intensity of LBP (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.77 to -0.36; P=.003) and functional disability (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.06; P=.03); however, the significant effects of dry needling plus other treatments on pain intensity could be superior to dry needling alone for LBP at postintervention (SMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11; P<.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate evidence showed that dry needling of MTrPs, especially if associated with other therapies, could be recommended to relieve the intensity of LBP at postintervention; however, the clinical superiority of dry needling in improving functional disability and its follow-up effects still remains unclear.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched until January 2017.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used dry needling as the main treatment and included participants diagnosed with LBP with the presence of MTrPs were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles, scored methodologic quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and functional disability at postintervention and follow-up.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 11 RCTs involving 802 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Results suggested that compared with other treatments, dry needling of MTrPs was more effective in alleviating the intensity of LBP (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.77 to -0.36; P=.003) and functional disability (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.06; P=.03); however, the significant effects of dry needling plus other treatments on pain intensity could be superior to dry needling alone for LBP at postintervention (SMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11; P<.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate evidence showed that dry needling of MTrPs, especially if associated with other therapies, could be recommended to relieve the intensity of LBP at postintervention; however, the clinical superiority of dry needling in improving functional disability and its follow-up effects still remains unclear.