Review article (meta-analysis)
Evidence for Dry Needling in the Management of Myofascial Trigger Points Associated With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.008Get rights and content

Abstract

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.

Section snippets

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.22

Study selection

A total of 784 articles were identified from PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, the reference lists of the included studies, and relevant reviews for eligible studies (fig 1). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 RCTs11, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 were eligible and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 802 patients.

Study characteristics

Table 1 summarizes the

Discussion

This systematic review summarizes the totality of evidence to date in relation to the effectiveness of dry needling for the treatment of LBP and includes a total of 11 RCTs involving 802 patients with LBP. The low-to-moderate-quality evidence showed that compared with other treatments, dry needling resulted in significant reduction in pain intensity and functional disability at postintervention. However, dry needling plus other treatments for LBP was more effective than dry needling alone in

Conclusions

Despite its limitations, this systematic review and meta-analysis provided a moderate quality of evidence recommending dry needling over other treatments to relieve the pain intensity of LBP at postintervention. However, scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of dry needling of MTrPs on LBP compared with other treatments at follow-up remains insufficient. Accordingly, more multiple-center RCTs with high-quality, large samples, and adequate follow-up, should be conducted to provide

Suppliers

  • a.

    RevMan 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre.

  • b.

    Stata 12.0; StataCorp.

References (43)

  • Q.A. Louw et al.

    The prevalence of low back pain in Africa: a systematic review

    BMC Musculoskelet Disord

    (2007)
  • M. van Middelkoop et al.

    A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

    Eur Spine J

    (2011)
  • A.D. Furlan et al.

    Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2005)
  • S.L. Koppenhaver et al.

    Baseline examination factors associated with clinical improvement after dry needling in individuals with low back pain

    J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

    (2015)
  • A. Mahmoudzadeh et al.

    The effect of dry needling on the radiating pain in subjects with discogenic low-back pain: a randomized control trial

    J Res Med Sci

    (2016)
  • Q.M. Huang et al.

    Myoelectrical activity and muscle morphology in a rat model of myofascial trigger points induced by blunt trauma to the vastus medialis

    Acupunct Med

    (2013)
  • X. Zhuang et al.

    Understanding of myofascial trigger points

    Chin Med J (Engl)

    (2014)
  • M. Abbaszadeh-Amirdehi et al.

    The neurophysiological effects of dry needling in patients with upper trapezius myofascial trigger points: study protocol of a controlled clinical trial

    BMJ Open

    (2013)
  • D.G. Simons et al.

    Travell and Simons'myofascial pain and dysfunction: the trigger point manual, volume 1: upper half of body

    (1999)
  • R. Boyles et al.

    Effectiveness of trigger point dry needling for multiple body regions: a systematic review

    J Man Manip Ther

    (2015)
  • M. Lam et al.

    Effectiveness of acupuncture for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

    (2013)
  • Cited by (92)

    • Dry needling in the management of tendinopathy: A systematic review of randomized control trials

      2023, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies
      Citation Excerpt :

      DN has been used effectively in the management of various musculoskeletal conditions. Several systematic reviews have reported the effectiveness of DN in reducing pain compared to sham or placebo treatment in lower back pain (Liu et al., 2018), neck and shoulder pain (Hall et al., 2018), temporomandibular pain (Machado et al., 2018) and myofascial trigger points (Morihisa et al., 2016). In addition, there is weak evidence of its positive effects on functional outcome measures (Ong and Claydon, 2014), (Tough and White, 2011).

    • Correlation between thoracic kyphosis and dry needle length required to reach the pleural space needling the upper trapezius: A cadaveric fluoroscopic assessment

      2022, Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Dry needling has been recommended for immediate post-treatment reduction of pain (Kietrys et al., 2013; Kietrys et al., 2014; Cagnie et al., 2015; Gattie et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2015; Espejo-Antúnez et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Griswold et al., 2019; Navarro-Santana et al., 2020; Rahou-El-Bachiri et al., 2020; Lew et al., 2021; Sanchez-Infante et al., 2021) and short-term improvement of pressure pain threshold (Espejo-Antúnez et al., 2017; Gattie et al., 2017; Vier et al., 2019; Navarro-Santana et al., 2020; Fernandez-de-las-Penas et al., 2021). When compared to other interventions in musculoskeletal diagnoses, DN is cautiously recommended over sham/placebo or no treatment (Kietrys et al., 2013; Gattie et al., 2017; Espejo-Antúnez et al., 2017; Vier et al., 2019; Sanchez-Infante et al., 2021) or recommended to be part of multimodal treatment (France et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018; Fernandez-de-las-Penas et al., 2021) as opposed to a stand-alone intervention. Many authors, however, recommend cautious clinical interpretation of conclusions due to investigations commonly having small, heterogenous sample sizes (Gattie et al., 2017), low quality (Gattie et al., 2017; Hall et al., 2018; Vier et al., 2019; Navarro-Santana et al., 2020; Rahou-El-Bachiri et al., 2020; Fernandez-de-las-Penas et al., 2021; Pourahmadi et al., 2021; Sanchez-Infante et al., 2021), insignificant between group differences (France et al., 2014; Gattie et al., 2017; Navarro-Santana et al., 2020) or lack of clinically meaningful between-group differences (Griswold et al., 2019).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81470105).

    Disclosures: none.

    View full text