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

The objective of this review was to evaluate the evidence for the consistency of force application by manual therapists when carrying out posterior-to-anterior (PA) mobilization techniques, including the factors that influence the application and measurement of mobilization forces. Studies were identified by searching 6 electronic databases up to April 2005, screening the reference lists of retrieved articles, and contacting experts by e-mail. Relevant articles were defined as those that described the measurement of forces applied during spinal mobilization or discussed the reliability of measurement of manual forces. Twenty studies described the quantitative measurement of applied force during a PA mobilization technique, with most focusing on the lumbar spine. When defined by magnitude, frequency, amplitude, and displacement, PA mobilization forces are extremely variable among clinicians applying the same manual technique. Variability may be attributed to differences in techniques, measurement or reporting procedures, or variations between therapists or between patients. The inconsistency in manual force application during PA spinal mobilization in existing studies suggests that further studies are needed to improve the clinical standardization of manual force application. Future research on mobilization should include forces applied to the cervical and thoracic spines in addition to the lumbar spine while thoroughly describing force parameters and measurement methods to facilitate comparison between studies.

(1) To identify reported tests used to assess sensorimotor control in individuals with idiopathic neck pain and (2) to investigate whether these tests can quantify differences between individuals with idiopathic neck pain and healthy individuals. Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus. Studies reporting sensorimotor outcomes in individuals with idiopathic neck pain or healthy individuals were identified. There were 1,677 records screened independently by 2 researchers for eligibility: 43 studies were included in the review, with 30 of these studies included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was determined using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were extracted using a standardized extraction table. Sensorimotor control was most commonly assessed by joint position error and postural sway. Pooled means for joint position error after cervical rotation in individuals with neck pain (range, 2.2°-9.8°) differed significantly (P=.04) compared with healthy individuals (range, 1.66°-5.1°). Postural sway with eyes open ranged from 4.85 to 10.5cm2 (neck pain) and 3.5 to 6.6cm2 (healthy) (P=.16), and postural sway with eyes closed ranged from 2.51 to 16.6cm2 (neck pain) and 2.74 to 10.9cm2 (healthy) (P=.30). Individual studies, but not meta-analysis, demonstrated differences between neck pain and healthy groups for postural sway. Other test conditions and other tests were not sufficiently investigated to enable pooling of data. The findings from this review suggest sensorimotor control testing may be clinically useful in individuals with idiopathic neck pain. However, results should be interpreted with caution because clinical differences were small; therefore, further cross-sectional research with larger samples is needed to determine the magnitude of the relation between sensorimotor control and pain and to assess any potential clinical significance.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Objective: To determine if force magnitude during posterior-to-anterior mobilization affects immediate and short-term outcomes in patients with chronic, nonspecific neck pain. Background: The optimal dose of mobilization to effectively treat patients with neck pain is not known. Methods: Patients with neck pain of at least 3 months in duration (n = 64) were randomized to receive a single treatment of posterior-to-anterior mobilization applied with 30 N or 90 N of mean peak force (3 sets of 30 seconds) or a placebo (detuned laser) on the spinous process at the painful spinal level. Pressure pain threshold, pain measured with a visual analog scale (range, 0–100 mm), cervical range of motion, and spinal stiffness at the painful spinal level (measured with a custom device and normalized as a percentage of C7 stiffness) were assessed before, immediately after, and at a mean ± SD follow-up of 4.0 ± 1.8 days following treatment. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests determined group differences for each outcome measure after treatment and at follow-up. Results: At follow-up, the 90-N group had less pain than the 30-N group (mean difference, 11.3 mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.1, 22.6 mm; P = .048) and lower stiffness than the placebo group (mean difference, 17.5%; 95% confidence interval: 4.2%, 30.9%; P = .006). These differences were not present immediately after treatment. There were no significant between-group differences in pressure pain threshold or range of motion after treatment or at follow-up. Conclusion: A specific dose of mobilization, in terms of applied force, appears necessary for reducing stiffness and potentially pain in patients with chronic neck pain. Changes were not observed immediately after mobilization, suggesting that its effects are not directly mechanical. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.anzctr.org.au/ ): ACTRN12611000374965. Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(3):141–152. Epub 22 January 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4778