Chys Marjolein, De Meulemeester Kayleigh, De Greef Indra, Murillo Carlos, Kindt Wouter, Kouzouz Yassir, Lescroart Bavo, Cagnie Barbara
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Pain in Motion International Research Group, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 2;12(3):1205. doi: 10.3390/jcm12031205.
The number of systematic reviews (SR) summarizing the literature regarding the clinical effects of Dry Needling (DN) has increased rapidly. Yet, rigorous evidence about the clinical effectiveness of this technique is still lacking. The aim of this umbrella review is to summarize the evidence about the clinical effects of trigger point DN on musculoskeletal disorders across all body regions. PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched to identify SRs examining the effect of DN (as a stand-alone intervention or combined with another treatment modality) compared to sham/no intervention or a physical therapy (PT) intervention with at least one clinical outcome in the domain of pain or physical functioning. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Quantification of the overlap in primary studies was calculated using the corrected covered area (CCA). The electronic search yielded 2286 results, of which 36 SRs were included in this review. Overall, DN is superior to sham/no intervention and equally effective to other interventions for pain reduction at short-term regardless of the body region. Some SRs favored wet needling (WN) over DN for short-term pain reductions. Results on physical functioning outcomes were contradictory across body regions. Limited data is available for mid- and long-term effects. DN has a short-term analgesic effect in all body regions and may be of additional value to the interventions that are used to date in clinical practice. Several studies have shown an additional treatment effect when combining DN to physiotherapeutic interventions compared to these interventions in isolation. There is a substantial need for the standardization of DN protocols to address the problem of heterogeneity and to strengthen the current evidence.
总结有关干针疗法(DN)临床效果的文献的系统评价(SR)数量迅速增加。然而,关于该技术临床有效性的严格证据仍然缺乏。本综合评价的目的是总结关于触发点干针疗法对全身各部位肌肉骨骼疾病临床效果的证据。检索了PubMed、科学网和Embase,以确定与假治疗/无干预或物理治疗(PT)干预相比,研究干针疗法(作为单独干预或与另一种治疗方式联合使用)效果的系统评价,且在疼痛或身体功能领域至少有一项临床结局。使用AMSTAR-2工具评估偏倚风险(RoB)。使用校正覆盖面积(CCA)计算原始研究中的重叠量化。电子检索产生了2286条结果,其中36篇系统评价纳入了本综述。总体而言,无论身体部位如何,干针疗法在短期内优于假治疗/无干预,且在减轻疼痛方面与其他干预同样有效。一些系统评价支持在短期内湿针疗法(WN)比干针疗法更能减轻疼痛。身体功能结局在不同身体部位的结果相互矛盾。关于中长期效果的数据有限。干针疗法在所有身体部位都有短期镇痛作用,可能对目前临床实践中使用的干预措施具有额外价值。几项研究表明,与单独使用这些干预措施相比,将干针疗法与物理治疗干预相结合时具有额外的治疗效果。迫切需要对干针疗法方案进行标准化,以解决异质性问题并加强现有证据。