Background: This study aimed to summarize the current status of research on ultrasound-guided acupuncture and dry-needling treatment and the specific treatment methods applied to patients. Methods: A scoping review was conducted, surveying three English databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) for studies published up to May 2024. All studies related to ultrasound-guided acupuncture and dry-needling treatment were considered. Literature was selected using selection and exclusion criteria, and extracted and organized using EndNote. Results: A total of 107 eligible studies were included. Among the 107 studies, non-comparative studies accounted for the largest proportion (n = 47, 43.9%), followed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 41, 38.3%). Diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue (15 diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue) accounted for most (n = 48, 55.8%) of the 86 diseases studied, followed by symptoms, signs, or clinical conditions not otherwise classified (n = 17, 19.8%). Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided acupuncture and dry-needling have been actively studied and applied for the treatment of various diseases. However, higher-quality studies are needed for further applications in research and clinical practice.

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to clinically investigate how variations in foot morphology influence spinal and lower limb alignment, based on the concept of an ascending kinetic chain. Methods: We analyzed the medical records of 100 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The X-ray image data used in the analysis included weight-bearing lateral views of both feet, whole-spine anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views, and full-length standing AP scanograms of the lower legs. In the obtained X-ray images, Calcaneal Inclination Angle (CIA), Tibiotalar Tilt Angle (TTA), Tibiotalar Angle (TA), Quadriceps Angle (Q-angle), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), and L1–S1 Lordosis (LL) were measured. Participants were categorized into subgroups based on their CIA values: Pes Planus, Normal, and Pes Cavus. These subgroups were analyzed by foot orientation (right and left) using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson correlation coefficient analysis. Results: The one-way ANOVA identified significant differences in mean right foot PT values among subgroups. Correlation analysis shows moderate associations between foot CIA and Q-angle of the knee, as well as pelvic parameters including PI, PT, SS, and LL. Conclusions: Analysis of the correlation between foot parameters and body alignment, in the context of diagnostic and evaluative aspects of Chuna manual medicine (CMM), revealed moderate correlations among the foot, ankle, knee, pelvis, and lumbosacral regions. These findings suggest that foot morphology may play a clinically relevant role in posture-related disorders and could contribute to preventive and corrective strategies for musculoskeletal alignment.

Background: No systematic review has examined the clinical effectiveness of mobilization for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness for the use of mobilization in SIS. Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to April 30, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of mobilization for SIS were included. Literature was extracted using Endnote 20, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (956 participants) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Adding mobilization to traditional physical therapy reduced pain (mean difference [MD]=1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.53, I ² = 97%, p < 0.00001), increased active range of motion (MD = 14.49, 95% CI: 8.46 to 20.53, I ² = 95%, p < 0.00001), and improved the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (MD = 5.95, 95% CI: 0.01 to 11.90, p = 0.05) and Constant-Murley scores (MD = 5.49, 95% CI: 0.78 to 10.19, p = 0.02). Joint mobilization was more effective in reducing pain (MD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.19, p = 0.01) and increasing active range of motion (MD = 8.56, 95% CI: 2.31 to 14.82, p = 0.007) compared with sham mobilization. No statistically significant differences were found between physical therapy plus mobilization and physical therapy plus exercise. Conclusion: Mobilization may offer adjunctive, short-term benefits in improving the clinical symptoms of SIS when added to conventional treatments. Future studies should focus on evaluating the effects of mobilization as a stand-alone intervention, incorporate larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and conduct high-quality comparative trials to identify the most effective specific mobilization techniques.

Background No systematic review has examined the clinical effectiveness of mobilization for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness for the use of mobilization in SIS. Methods PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to April 30, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of mobilization for SIS were included. Literature was extracted using Endnote 20, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results Nineteen randomized controlled trials (956 participants) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Adding mobilization to traditional physical therapy reduced pain (mean difference [MD]=1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.53, I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001), increased active range of motion (MD = 14.49, 95% CI: 8.46 to 20.53, I2 = 95%, p < 0.00001), and improved the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (MD = 5.95, 95% CI: 0.01 to 11.90, p = 0.05) and Constant-Murley scores (MD = 5.49, 95% CI: 0.78 to 10.19, p = 0.02). Joint mobilization was more effective in reducing pain (MD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.19, p = 0.01) and increasing active range of motion (MD = 8.56, 95% CI: 2.31 to 14.82, p = 0.007) compared with sham mobilization. No statistically significant differences were found between physical therapy plus mobilization and physical therapy plus exercise. Conclusion Mobilization may offer adjunctive, short-term benefits in improving the clinical symptoms of SIS when added to conventional treatments. Future studies should focus on evaluating the effects of mobilization as a stand-alone intervention, incorporate larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and conduct high-quality comparative trials to identify the most effective specific mobilization techniques.

Background No systematic review has examined the clinical effectiveness of mobilization for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness for the use of mobilization in SIS. Methods PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to April 30, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of mobilization for SIS were included. Literature was extracted using Endnote 20, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results Nineteen randomized controlled trials (956 participants) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Adding mobilization to traditional physical therapy reduced pain (mean difference [MD]=1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.53, I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001), increased active range of motion (MD = 14.49, 95% CI: 8.46 to 20.53, I2 = 95%, p < 0.00001), and improved the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (MD = 5.95, 95% CI: 0.01 to 11.90, p = 0.05) and Constant-Murley scores (MD = 5.49, 95% CI: 0.78 to 10.19, p = 0.02). Joint mobilization was more effective in reducing pain (MD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.19, p = 0.01) and increasing active range of motion (MD = 8.56, 95% CI: 2.31 to 14.82, p = 0.007) compared with sham mobilization. No statistically significant differences were found between physical therapy plus mobilization and physical therapy plus exercise. Conclusion Mobilization may offer adjunctive, short-term benefits in improving the clinical symptoms of SIS when added to conventional treatments. Future studies should focus on evaluating the effects of mobilization as a stand-alone intervention, incorporate larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and conduct high-quality comparative trials to identify the most effective specific mobilization techniques.

Background No systematic review has examined the clinical effectiveness of mobilization for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness for the use of mobilization in SIS. Methods PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to April 30, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of mobilization for SIS were included. Literature was extracted using Endnote 20, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results Nineteen randomized controlled trials (956 participants) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Adding mobilization to traditional physical therapy reduced pain (mean difference [MD]=1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.53, I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001), increased active range of motion (MD = 14.49, 95% CI: 8.46 to 20.53, I2 = 95%, p < 0.00001), and improved the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (MD = 5.95, 95% CI: 0.01 to 11.90, p = 0.05) and Constant-Murley scores (MD = 5.49, 95% CI: 0.78 to 10.19, p = 0.02). Joint mobilization was more effective in reducing pain (MD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.19, p = 0.01) and increasing active range of motion (MD = 8.56, 95% CI: 2.31 to 14.82, p = 0.007) compared with sham mobilization. No statistically significant differences were found between physical therapy plus mobilization and physical therapy plus exercise. Conclusion Mobilization may offer adjunctive, short-term benefits in improving the clinical symptoms of SIS when added to conventional treatments. Future studies should focus on evaluating the effects of mobilization as a stand-alone intervention, incorporate larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and conduct high-quality comparative trials to identify the most effective specific mobilization techniques.