Efectividad de la punción seca de un punto gatillo miofascial versus manipulación de codo sobre el dolor y fuerza máxima de prensión de la mano

Effects of manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture for lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of acupuncture/electroacupuncture, alone or combined with other interventions, on pain intensity, pain-related disability, and strength in lateral epicondylalgia (LE) of musculoskeletal origin.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials, where at least one group received acupuncture or electroacupuncture for LE of musculoskeletal origin. To be eligible, trials had to include humans and collect outcomes on pain intensity or pain-related disability in LE. Data were extracted by two reviewers. The risk of bias (RoB) of the trials was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool, methodological quality was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score, and the level of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random effects were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 14 trials (10 acupuncture) were included. The meta-analysis found a moderate effect size of acupuncture (SMD = -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.22 to -0.10), but not electroacupuncture (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI = -0.99 to 0.83), in the reduction of elbow pain as compared to a comparative group. Acupuncture exhibited a significant moderate effect size (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI = -0.91 to -0.11) in the improvement of related-disability. Acupuncture (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.57), but not electroacupuncture (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI = -0.29 to 0.98), exhibited a significant but small effect size on strength. Most significant effects were in the short term. The RoB was low but the heterogeneity of trial results led to a downgrading of the GRADE evidence level.

CONCLUSION

Low-level evidence suggests positive effects of acupuncture, but not electroacupuncture, for pain, related-disability, and strength, in LE of musculoskeletal origin, in the short term.

Effects of trigger point dry needling on lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of dry needling alone or combined with other treatment interventions on pain, related-disability, pressure pain sensitivity, and strength in people with lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases from their inception to 5 April 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled trials collecting outcomes on pain, related-disability, pressure pain thresholds, or strength where one group received dry needling for lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro score, and the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Seven studies including 320 patients with lateral epicondylalgia were included. The meta-analysis found that dry needling reduced pain intensity (SMD ‒1.13, 95%CI ‒1.64 to ‒0.62) and related-disability (SMD ‒2.17, 95%CI ‒3.34 to ‒1.01) with large effect sizes compared to a comparative group. Dry needling also increased pressure pain thresholds with a large effect size (SMD 0.98, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.67) and grip strength with a small size effect (SMD 0.48, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.81) when compared to a comparative group. The most significant effect was at short-term. The risk of bias was generally low, but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the evidence level.

CONCLUSION

Low to moderate evidence suggests a positive effect of dry needling for pain, pain-related disability, pressure pain sensitivity and strength at short-term in patients with lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1a.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

OSF Registry - https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZY3E8.

Blinding Strategies in Dry Needling Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Blinding of participants and therapists in trials of physical interventions is a significant and ongoing challenge. There is no widely accepted sham protocol for dry needling.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review was to summarize the effectiveness and limitations of blinding strategies and types of shams that have been used in dry needling trials.

DATA SOURCES

Twelve databases were searched from inception to February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials that compared active dry needling with a sham that simulated dry needling were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

The main domains of data extraction were participant/therapist details, intervention details, blinding strategies, blinding assessment outcomes, and key conclusions of authors. Reported blinding strategies and sham types were synthesized descriptively, with available blinding effectiveness data synthesized using a chance-corrected measurement of blinding (blinding index).

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified 4894 individual publications with 27 trials eligible for inclusion. In 22 trials, risk of methodological bias was high or unclear. Across trials, blinding strategies and sham types were heterogeneous. Notably, no trials attempted therapist blinding. Sham protocols have focused on participant blinding using strategies related to group standardization and simulation of tactile sensations. There has been little attention given to the other senses or cognitive strategies to enhance intervention credibility. Nonpenetrating sham types may provide effective participant blinding.

LIMITATIONS

Trials were clinically and methodologically diverse, which limited the comparability of blinding effectiveness across trials. Reported blinding evaluations had a high risk of chance findings with power clearly achieved in only 1 trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based consensus on a sham protocol for dry needling is required. Recommendations provided in this review may be used to develop sham protocols so that future protocols are more consistent and potentially more effective.

The Effects of Needling Therapies on Muscle Force Production: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Needling has been shown to decrease pain in the short term; however, its effects on muscle force production are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence regarding the comparative effects of needling on muscle force production.

METHODS

In this systematic review, an electronic search was performed using key words related to needling. Methodological quality of articles was appraised and effect sizes were calculated. The strength of evidence was determined, and meta-analysis was performed when similar methods were used in studies for similar conditions.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in this review, of which 9 were deemed to be of high quality (greater than 6/10 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale), 11 of fair quality (5 to 6/10), and 1 of poor quality (less than 5/10). Three meta-analyses were performed. There was moderate strength of evidence and medium effect sizes for needling therapy to enhance force production in those with neck pain, and very low strength of evidence of no effect for individuals with nonspecific and postoperative shoulder pain and those with lateral epicondylalgia. Other studies not included in the 3 meta-analyses demonstrated no significant effect of needling on force production. These studies included individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome, knee osteoarthritis, ankle sprains, knee arthroscopy, or delayed-onset muscle soreness.

CONCLUSION

The majority of studies suggest no effect of dry needling on force production. High-quality studies with adequate power that control for the placebo effect and follow accepted reporting standards could make valuable contributions to the literature. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42017080318).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(3):154-170. Epub 30 Nov 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8270.

Effectiveness and adequacy of blinding in the moderation of pain outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analyses of dry needling trials

BACKGROUND

Blinding is critical to clinical trials because it allows for separation of specific intervention effects from bias, by equalising all factors between groups except for the proposed mechanism of action. Absent or inadequate blinding in clinical trials has consistently been shown in large meta-analyses to result in overestimation of intervention effects. Blinding in dry needling trials, particularly blinding of participants and therapists, is a practical challenge; therefore, specific effects of dry needling have yet to be determined. Despite this, dry needling is widely used by health practitioners internationally for the treatment of pain. This review presents the first empirical account of the influence of blinding on intervention effect estimates in dry needling trials. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether participant beliefs about group allocation relative to actual allocation (blinding effectiveness), and/or adequacy of blinding procedures, moderated pain outcomes in dry needling trials.

METHODS

Twelve databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, Scopus, CINAHL, PEDro, The Cochrane Library, Trove, ProQuest, trial registries) were searched from inception to February 2016. Trials that compared active dry needling with a sham that simulated dry needling were included. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Available blinding effectiveness data were converted to a blinding index, a quantitative measurement of blinding, and meta-regression was used to investigate the influence of the blinding index on pain. Adequacy of blinding procedures was based on critical appraisal, and subgroup meta-analyses were used to investigate the influence of blinding adequacy on pain. Meta-analytical techniques used inverse-variance random-effects models.

RESULTS

The search identified 4,894 individual publications with 24 eligible for inclusion in the quantitative syntheses. In 19 trials risk of methodological bias was high or unclear. Five trials were adequately blinded, and blinding was assessed and sufficiently reported to compute the blinding index in 10 trials. There was no evidence of a moderating effect of blinding index on pain. For short-term and long-term pain assessments pooled effects for inadequately blinded trials were statistically significant in favour of active dry needling, whereas there was no evidence of a difference between active and sham groups for adequately blinded trials.

DISCUSSION

The small number and size of included trials meant there was insufficient evidence to conclusively determine if a moderating effect of blinding effectiveness or adequacy existed. However, with the caveats of small sample size, generally unclear risk of bias, statistical heterogeneity, potential publication bias, and the limitations of subgroup analyses, the available evidence suggests that inadequate blinding procedures could lead to exaggerated intervention effects in dry needling trials.

Effectiveness of dry needling on reducing pain intensity in patients with myofascial pain syndrome: a Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the literature about the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) on relieving pain and increasing range of motion (ROM) in individuals with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS).

METHODS

Papers published from January 2000 to January 2013 were identified through an electronic search in the databases MEDLINE, Dialnet, Cochrane Library Plus, Physiotherapy Evidence Data-base (PEDro) and Spanish Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC). The studies included were randomized controlled trials written in English and/or Spanish about the effectiveness of DN on pain and ROM in individuals with MPS.

RESULTS

Out of 19 clinical trials that were potentially relevant, a total of 10 were included in the Meta-analysis. Regarding pain intensity reduction when measured before and immediately after the intervention, DN achieved improvement compared with the placebo treatment [d = - 0.49; 95% CI (- 3.21, 0.42)] and with the control group [d = - 9.13; 95% C (- 14.70, - 3.56)]. However, other treatments achieved better results on the same variable compared with DN, considering the measurements for pre-treatment and immediately after [d = 2.54; 95% CI (- 0.40, 5.48)], as well as the pre-treatment and after 3-4 weeks [d = 4.23; 95% CI (0.78, 7.68)]. DN showed a significantly increased ROM when measured before the intervention and immediately after, in comparison with the placebo [d = 2.00; 95% C (1.60, 2.41)]. However, other treatments achieved a significant better result regarding ROM when it was measured before the intervention and immediately after, as compared with DN [d = - 1.42; 95% CI (- 1.84, - 0.99)].

CONCLUSION

DN was less effective on decreasing pain comparing to the placebo group. Other treatments were more effective than DN on reducing pain after 3-4 weeks. However, on increasing ROM, DN was more effective comparing to that of placebo group, but less than other treatments.