Paracetamol, NSAIDS and opioid analgesics for chronic low back pain: a network meta-analysis

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials

Objective

Meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method.

Methods

We identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0–100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges.

Results

Twelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0–100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0–100 scale and a 0–10 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0–10 scale and 0–3 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0–100 scale and a 0–3 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0–100 scale and a 0–4 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher).

Conclusion

Rescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included.

Study registration/data availability

Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01763-x.

Network meta-analysis for comparative effectiveness of treatments for chronic low back pain disorders: systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Six electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressants for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33  points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Efficacy and Safety of Medicines Targeting Neurotrophic Factors in the Management of Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most people with LBP receive the diagnosis of nonspecific LBP or sciatica. Medications are commonly prescribed but have limited analgesic effects and are associated with adverse events. A novel treatment approach is to target neurotrophins such as nerve growth factor (NGF) to reduce pain intensity. NGF inhibitors have been tested in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in recent years, showing promise for the treatment of chronic LBP; however, their efficacy and safety need to be evaluated to guide regulatory actions.

Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medicines targeting neurotrophins in patients with LBP and sciatica.

Methods

In this systematic review, we will include published and unpublished records of parallel RCTs and the first phase of crossover RCTs that compare the effects of medicines targeting neurotrophins with any control group. We will search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, and WHO International Clinical Registry Platform databases from inception. Pairs of authors will independently screen the records for eligibility, and we will independently extract data in duplicate. We will conduct a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) with the studies that report sufficient data and compare the medicines of interest versus placebo. We will use random-effects models and calculate estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We will assess the risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and form judgments of confidence in the evidence according to GRADE recommendations. We will use the PRISMA statement to report the findings. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses by condition, type of medication, and time point. We will also assess the impact of a potential new trial on an existing meta-analysis. Data from studies that meet inclusion criteria but cannot be included in the meta-analysis will be reported narratively.

Results

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on May 19, 2020. As of December 2020, we have identified 1932 records.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of NGF inhibitors for pain in patients with nonspecific LBP and sciatica. The inclusion of new studies and unpublished data may improve the precision of the effect estimates and guide regulatory actions of the medications for LBP and sciatica.

Trial Registration

Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/b8adn/

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/22905

Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain.

METHODS

We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Ankle-foot orthoses and continuous functional electrical stimulation improve walking speed after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Foot-drop is a common impairment after stroke, which reduces walking ability.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of interventions aimed at reducing foot-drop, i.e., ankle-foot orthoses and functional electrical stimulation, on walking speed and balance after stroke.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and PEDro databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The review included only parallel, randomized trials. Participants were ambulatory adults after stroke. The experimental interventions were the use of an ankle-foot orthosis or functional electrical stimulation.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcome data related to walking speed and balance were extracted from the eligible trials and combined in random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of trials was assessed by the PEDro scores and the quality of evidence was determined according the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Eleven trials involving 1135 participants were included. The mean PEDro score of the trials was 5.8 (ranging from 4 to 7). Ankle-foot orthoses (MD 0.24m/s; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41) and functional electrical stimulation (MD 0.09m/s; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.14) significantly increased walking speed, compared with no intervention/placebo. Results regarding balance were inconclusive. Ankle-foot orthoses were not superior to functional electrical stimulation for improving walking speed (MD 0.00m/s; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05) or balance (MD 0.27 points on the Berg Balance Scale; 95% CI -0.85 to 1.39) after stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provided moderate-quality evidence that both ankle-foot orthoses and functional electrical stimulation improve walking speed after stroke, but the effects on balance remain unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019130988.

The Analgesic Effect of Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback for People With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Chronic pain is a global health problem, affecting around 1 in 5 individuals in the general population. The understanding of the key role of functional brain alterations in the generation of chronic pain has led researchers to focus on pain treatments that target brain activity. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback attempts to modulate the power of maladaptive electroencephalography frequency powers to decrease chronic pain. Although several studies have provided promising evidence, the effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback on chronic pain is uncertain.

Objective

This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback. In addition, we will synthesize the findings of nonrandomized studies in a narrative review.

Methods

We will apply the search strategy in 5 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) for published studies and in clinical trial registries for completed unpublished studies. We will include studies that used electroencephalographic neurofeedback as an intervention for people with chronic pain. Risk-of-bias tools will be used to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We will include randomized controlled trials if they have compared electroencephalographic neurofeedback with any other intervention or placebo control. The data from randomized controlled trials will be aggregated to perform a meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The primary outcome measure is pain intensity assessed by self-report scales. Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality measured by self-reported questionnaires. We will investigate the studies for additional outcomes addressing adverse effects and resting-state electroencephalography analysis. Additionally, all types of nonrandomized studies will be included for a narrative synthesis. The intended and unintended effects of nonrandomized studies will be extracted and summarized in a descriptive table.

Results

Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review, as there will be no patient involvement. The search for this systematic review commenced in July 2020, and we expect to publish the findings in early 2021.

Conclusions

This systematic review will provide recommendations for researchers and health professionals, as well as people with chronic pain, about the evidence for the analgesic effect of electroencephalographic neurofeedback.

Trial Registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020177608; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=177608

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/22821

Effectiveness of dry needling for improving pain and disability in adults with tension-type, cervicogenic, or migraine headaches: protocol for a systematic review

Background

Headache is the most common neurological symptoms worldwide, as over 90% of people have noted at least one headache during their lifetime. Tension-type headaches, cervicogenic headaches, and migraines are common types of headache which can have a significant impact on social, physical, and occupational functioning. Therapeutic management of headaches mainly includes physical therapy and pharmacological interventions. Dry needling is a relatively new therapeutic approach that uses a thin filiform needle without injectate to penetrate the skin and stimulate underlying tissues for the management of neuromusculoskeletal pain and movement impairments.

The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling in comparison to other interventions on pain and disability in patients with tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine.

Methods/design

We will focus on clinical trials with concurrent control group(s) and comparative observational studies assessing the effect of dry needling in patients with tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine. Electronic databases from relevant fields of research (PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, Embase®, PEDro, Web of Science, Ovid, AMED, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar) will be searched from inception to June 2019 using defined search terms. No restrictions for language of publication or geographic location will be applied. Moreover, grey literature, citation tracking, and reference lists scanning of the selected studies will be searched manually. Primary outcomes of this study are pain intensity and disability, and secondary outcomes are cervical spine ROM, frequency of headaches, health-related quality of life, and TrPs tenderness. Studies will be selected by three independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Three reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a pre-piloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. The assessment of risk of bias will be implemented using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group 13-item criteria and NOS. Direct meta-analysis will be performed using a fixed or random effects model to estimate effect size such as standardized mean difference (Morris’s d_ppc) and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity will also be evaluated using the I² statistic and the χ² test. All meta-analyses will be performed using Stata V.11 and V.14 softwares. The overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes will be assessed using GRADE.

Discussion

All analyses in this study will be based on the previous published papers. Therefore, ethical approval and patient consent are not required. The findings of this study will provide important information on the value of dry needling for the management of tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019124125.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0266-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.