Journal of bodywork and movement therapies · 2025
Comparison of dry needling with physical modalities for myofascial trigger point of patients with neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chen Yongjia, Sun Yannan, Ai Shaolong, Wang Qian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a chronic musculoskeletal condition characterized by activation of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). This systematic review compared the effects of dry needling (DN) and physical modalities on pain and function in patients with MPS.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2023 comparing DN with physical modalities for MTrPs-induced neck pain. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model. Outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and neck disability index (NDI), expressed as pooled mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Evidence quality was graded using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs met inclusion criteria. All studies showed high risk of bias due to lack of participant blinding, resulting in moderate-to-low GRADE ratings. DN and physical modalities showed no statistically or clinically significant differences in pain (VAS: MD = -0.13 cm, 95 % CI: 0.35 to 0.09, P = 0.24), PPT (MD = 0.04 kgf, 95 % CI: 0.08 to 0.16, P = 0.48), or function (NDI: MD = 0.00, 95 % CI: 0.61 to 0.60, P = 0.99). Heterogeneity was low, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: DN and physical modalities appear similarly effective for MPS, but high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2023 comparing DN with physical modalities for MTrPs-induced neck pain. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model. Outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and neck disability index (NDI), expressed as pooled mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Evidence quality was graded using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs met inclusion criteria. All studies showed high risk of bias due to lack of participant blinding, resulting in moderate-to-low GRADE ratings. DN and physical modalities showed no statistically or clinically significant differences in pain (VAS: MD = -0.13 cm, 95 % CI: 0.35 to 0.09, P = 0.24), PPT (MD = 0.04 kgf, 95 % CI: 0.08 to 0.16, P = 0.48), or function (NDI: MD = 0.00, 95 % CI: 0.61 to 0.60, P = 0.99). Heterogeneity was low, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: DN and physical modalities appear similarly effective for MPS, but high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence.