Dataset Information

Is dry needling effective for low back pain?: A systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dry needling (DN) for treating low back pain (LBP).

Methods

Nine databases were searched from inception to October 2017. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving DN for treating LBP were retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias among the included studies using the risk of bias assessment tool by Cochrane Collaboration.

Results

Sixteen RCTs were included and the risk of bias assessment of them was "high" or "unclear" for most domains. Meta-analysis results suggested that DN was more effective than acupuncture in alleviating pain intensity and functional disability at postintervention, while its efficacy on pain and disability at follow-up was only equal to acupuncture. Besides, DN was superior to sham needling for alleviating pain intensity at postintervention/follow-up and functional disability at postintervention. Additionally, qualitative review revealed that DN combined with acupuncture had more significant effect on alleviating pain intensity at postintervention and achieved higher response rate than DN alone. However, compared with other treatments (laser, physical therapy, other combined treatments, etc.), it remained uncertain whether the efficacy of DN was superior or equal because the results of included studies were mixed.

Conclusions

Compared with acupuncture and sham needling, DN is more effective for alleviating pain and disability at postintervention in LBP, while its effectiveness on pain and disability at follow-up was equal to acupuncture. Besides, it remains uncertain whether the efficacy of DN is superior to other treatments. Nevertheless, considering the overall "high" or "unclear" risk of bias of studies, all current evidence is not robust to draw a firm conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of DN for LBP. Future RCTs with rigorous methodologies are required to confirm our findings.

Details of ethics approval

No ethical approval was required for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

SUBMITTER: Hu HT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6242300 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is dry needling effective for low back pain?: A systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

Hu Han-Tong HT Gao Hong H Ma Rui-Jie RJ Zhao Xiao-Feng XF Tian Hong-Fang HF Li Lu L

Medicine 20180601 26

<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dry needling (DN) for treating low back pain (LBP).<h4>Methods</h4>Nine databases were searched from inception to October 2017. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving DN for treating LBP were retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias among the included studies using the risk of bias assessment tool by Cochrane Collaboration.<h4>Results</h4>Sixteen RCTs were ...[more]

PMID: 29952980

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dry needling (DN) is a standard procedure for treating musculoskeletal disorders. However, there are no clear recommendations for using DN in low back pain (LBP). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the novel DN program for reducing pain intensity and improving functional efficiency in patients with chronic LBP. A group of 40 patients with chronic LBP due to the L5-S1 discopathy were eligible and randomized into experimental (n = 20) and control (n = 20) groups. The DN program was performed for the experimental group according to the Five Regulatory Systems (FRS) concept. The control group received sham therapy using placebo needles. DN sessions were performed twice a week for 4 weeks. A single needling application lasted 60 min. Both groups received standard treatment and physical exercise of LBP for 1 month. Subjective pain was measured by a visual analog scale (VAS), functional efficiency was assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the lower spine range of motion was measured with the Schober test. There were significant differences in pain reduction (VAS) in both groups (p < 0.001). The strongest analgesic effect in the DN group yielded 6.45 points immediately after the therapy, 6.2 points after 1 month, and 6 points after 3 months. The DN group scored higher VAS reduction than the control group (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in the functional state (ODI) in the experimental group (p < 0.001). There was a significant ODI decrease by 18.1 points, after 1 month by 18.9 points, and after 3 months by 17.6 points. No significant differences were found in the control group (p > 0.05). Intergroup differences were observed in the functional efficiency in ODI in all measurement time-points (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in the range of motion (Schober test) in the DN group (main effect: p < 0.001). For all measurements, differences (p < 0.001) were observed in favor of DN compared to the control. In conclusion, DN program according to the FRS concept stands for the novel treatment method supplemented by an exercise program, effectively reducing pain and improving functional efficiency in LBP patients.

Project description:FT program (FT) is a multimodal approach used to enhance postoperative rehabilitation and accelerate recovery. It was 1st described in open heart surgery, then modified and applied successfully in colorectal surgery. FT program was described in liver resection for the 1st time in 2008. Although the program has become widely accepted, it has not yet been considered the standard of care in liver surgery.we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of using the FT program compared to the traditional care (TC), on the main clinical and surgical outcomes for patients who underwent elective liver resection.PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Cochran databases were searched to identify eligible articles that compared FT with TC in elective liver resection to be included in this study. Subgroup meta-analysis between laparoscopic and open surgical approaches to liver resection was also conducted. Quality assessment was performed for all the included studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were considered as a summary measure of evaluating the association in this meta-analysis for dichotomous and continuous data, respectively. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported for both measures. I was used to assess the heterogeneity across studies.From 2008 to 2015, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies were identified, including 394 and 416 patients in the FT and TC groups, respectively. The length of hospital stay (LoS) was markedly shortened in both the open and laparoscopic approaches within the FT program (P?<?0.00001). The reduced LoS was accompanied by accelerated functional recovery (P = 0.0008) and decreased hospital costs, with no increase in readmission, morbidity, or mortality rates. Moreover, significant results were found within the FT group such as reduced operative time (P = 0.03), lower intensive care unit admission rate (P?<?0.00001), early bowel opening (P???0.00001), and rapid normal diet restoration (P???0.00001).FT program is safe, feasible, and can be applied successfully in liver resection. Future RCTs on controversial issues such as multimodal analgesia and adherence rate are needed. Specific FT guidelines should be developed for liver resection.

Project description:BackgroundBlinding is critical to clinical trials because it allows for separation of specific intervention effects from bias, by equalising all factors between groups except for the proposed mechanism of action. Absent or inadequate blinding in clinical trials has consistently been shown in large meta-analyses to result in overestimation of intervention effects. Blinding in dry needling trials, particularly blinding of participants and therapists, is a practical challenge; therefore, specific effects of dry needling have yet to be determined. Despite this, dry needling is widely used by health practitioners internationally for the treatment of pain. This review presents the first empirical account of the influence of blinding on intervention effect estimates in dry needling trials. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether participant beliefs about group allocation relative to actual allocation (blinding effectiveness), and/or adequacy of blinding procedures, moderated pain outcomes in dry needling trials.MethodsTwelve databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, Scopus, CINAHL, PEDro, The Cochrane Library, Trove, ProQuest, trial registries) were searched from inception to February 2016. Trials that compared active dry needling with a sham that simulated dry needling were included. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Available blinding effectiveness data were converted to a blinding index, a quantitative measurement of blinding, and meta-regression was used to investigate the influence of the blinding index on pain. Adequacy of blinding procedures was based on critical appraisal, and subgroup meta-analyses were used to investigate the influence of blinding adequacy on pain. Meta-analytical techniques used inverse-variance random-effects models.ResultsThe search identified 4,894 individual publications with 24 eligible for inclusion in the quantitative syntheses. In 19 trials risk of methodological bias was high or unclear. Five trials were adequately blinded, and blinding was assessed and sufficiently reported to compute the blinding index in 10 trials. There was no evidence of a moderating effect of blinding index on pain. For short-term and long-term pain assessments pooled effects for inadequately blinded trials were statistically significant in favour of active dry needling, whereas there was no evidence of a difference between active and sham groups for adequately blinded trials.DiscussionThe small number and size of included trials meant there was insufficient evidence to conclusively determine if a moderating effect of blinding effectiveness or adequacy existed. However, with the caveats of small sample size, generally unclear risk of bias, statistical heterogeneity, potential publication bias, and the limitations of subgroup analyses, the available evidence suggests that inadequate blinding procedures could lead to exaggerated intervention effects in dry needling trials.

Project description:Our aim was to evaluate the effect of dry needling alone as compared to sham needling, no intervention, or other physical interventions applied over trigger points (TrPs) related with neck pain symptoms. Randomized controlled trials including one group receiving dry needling for TrPs associated with neck pain were identified in electronic databases. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score were used to assessed risk of bias (RoB) and methodological quality of the trials. The quality of evidence was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Between-groups mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated (3) Twenty-eight trials were finally included. Dry needling reduced pain immediately after (MD -1.53, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.76) and at short-term (MD -2.31, 95% CI -3.64 to -0.99) when compared with sham/placebo/waiting list/other form of dry needling and, also, at short-term (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.06) compared with manual therapy. No differences in comparison with other physical therapy interventions were observed. An effect on pain-related disability at the short-term was found when comparing dry needing with sham/placebo/waiting list/other form of dry needling (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14) but not with manual therapy or other interventions. Dry needling was effective for improving pressure pain thresholds immediately after the intervention (MD 55.48 kPa, 95% CI 27.03 to 83.93). No effect on cervical range of motion of dry needling against either comparative group was found. No between-treatment effect was observed in any outcome at mid-term. Low to moderate evidence suggests that dry needling can be effective for improving pain intensity and pain-related disability in individuals with neck pain symptoms associated with TrPs at the short-term. No significant effects on pressure pain sensitivity or cervical range of motion were observed. Registration number: OSF Registry-https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P2UWD.

Dataset Information

Is dry needling effective for low back pain?: A systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Details of ethics approval

Publications

Is dry needling effective for low back pain?: A systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets