J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Mar;47(3):133-149. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7096. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Background An increasing number of physical therapists in the United States and throughout the world are using dry needling to treat musculoskeletal pain. Objective To examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of dry needling delivered by a physical therapist for any musculoskeletal pain condition. Methods Electronic databases were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials included those with human subjects who had musculoskeletal conditions that were treated with dry needling performed by a physical therapist, compared with a control or other intervention. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results The initial search returned 218 articles. After screening, 13 were included. Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale scores ranged from 4 to 9 (out of a maximum score of 10), with a median score of 7. Eight meta-analyses were performed. In the immediate to 12-week follow-up period, studies provided evidence that dry needling may decrease pain and increase pressure pain threshold when compared to control/sham or other treatment. At 6 to 12 months, dry needling was favored for decreasing pain, but the treatment effect was not statistically significant. Dry needling, when compared to control/sham treatment, provides a statistically significant effect on functional outcomes, but not when compared to other treatments. Conclusion Very low-quality to moderate-quality evidence suggests that dry needling performed by physical therapists is more effective than no treatment, sham dry needling, and other treatments for reducing pain and improving pressure pain threshold in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain in the immediate to 12-week follow-up period. Low-quality evidence suggests superior outcomes with dry needling for functional outcomes when compared to no treatment or sham needling. However, no difference in functional outcomes exists when compared to other physical therapy treatments. Evidence of long-term benefit of dry needling is currently lacking. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(3):133-149. Epub 3 Feb 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7096.
研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析。
背景:美国乃至全球越来越多的物理治疗师正在使用干针疗法治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛。
目的:评估物理治疗师进行干针治疗任何肌肉骨骼疼痛疾病的短期和长期疗效。
方法:电子数据库检索。纳入的随机对照试验包括接受干针治疗的肌肉骨骼疾病患者,与对照组或其他干预措施进行比较。使用推荐评估、制定与评价(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation,GRADE)评估证据的总体质量。
结果:最初的搜索返回了 218 篇文章。经过筛选,纳入了 13 篇文章。物理治疗证据数据库质量评分范围为 4 到 9 分(满分 10 分),中位数为 7 分。进行了 8 项荟萃分析。在即时到 12 周的随访期间,研究提供的证据表明,与对照组/假干针或其他治疗相比,干针治疗可能会降低疼痛并增加压力疼痛阈值。在 6 到 12 个月时,干针治疗在减轻疼痛方面更有优势,但治疗效果无统计学意义。与对照组/假干针治疗相比,干针治疗在功能结局方面有统计学显著效果,但与其他治疗相比则不然。
结论:极低质量到中等质量证据表明,物理治疗师进行的干针治疗在即时到 12 周的随访期间,比不治疗、假干针治疗和其他治疗更能有效减轻疼痛和提高压力疼痛阈值。与不治疗或假干针相比,干针治疗在功能结局方面的结果更好,但与其他物理治疗方法相比则没有差异。目前缺乏干针治疗长期获益的证据。
证据等级:治疗,1a 级。美国骨科运动物理治疗学会杂志 2017 年;47(3):133-149. 2017 年 2 月 3 日在线发表。doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7096.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-2
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Health Technol Assess. 2024-10
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-6-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-2-9
Video J Sports Med. 2021-9-7