• Joshua Ong and Leica S Claydon.
• Centre for Physiotherapy Research, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.
• J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2014 Jul 1;18(3):390-8.

Backgroundand purpose: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine the effect of dry needling in the treatment of MTrPs.MethodsSearches were performed using the electronic databases AMED, EBM reviews, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE (all from database inception-February 2012).Study SelectionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they compared dry needling with another form of treatment or placebo and included pain intensity as an outcome.Data ExtractionTwo blinded reviewers independently screened the articles, scored their methodological quality and extracted data.Quality AssessmentPhysiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) quality scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used.ResultsFour RCTs compared dry needling to lidocaine and one RCT compared dry needling to placebo. Meta-analyses of dry needling revealed no significant difference between dry needling and lidocaine immediately after treatment standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.41 (95%CI -0.15 to 0.97), at one month (SMD -1.46; 95% CI -2.04 to 4.96) and three to six months (SMD -0.28; 95% CI -0.63 to 0.07).DiscussionAlthough not significant in the meta-analyses, there were interesting patterns favoring lidocaine immediately after treatment and dry needling at three to six months.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…