Our aim was to evaluate the effect of dry needling alone as compared to sham needling, no intervention, or other physical interventions applied over trigger points (TrPs) related with neck pain symptoms. Randomized controlled trials including one group receiving dry needling for TrPs associated with neck pain were identified in electronic databases. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score were used to assessed risk of bias (RoB) and methodological quality of the trials. The quality of evidence was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Between-groups mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated (3) Twenty-eight trials were finally included. Dry needling reduced pain immediately after (MD −1.53, 95% CI −2.29 to −0.76) and at short-term (MD −2.31, 95% CI −3.64 to −0.99) when compared with sham/placebo/waiting list/other form of dry needling and, also, at short-term (MD −0.51, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.06) compared with manual therapy. No differences in comparison with other physical therapy interventions were observed. An effect on pain-related disability at the short-term was found when comparing dry needing with sham/placebo/waiting list/other form of dry needling (SMD −0.87, 95% CI −1.60 to −0.14) but not with manual therapy or other interventions. Dry needling was effective for improving pressure pain thresholds immediately after the intervention (MD 55.48 kPa, 95% CI 27.03 to 83.93). No effect on cervical range of motion of dry needling against either comparative group was found. No between-treatment effect was observed in any outcome at mid-term. Low to moderate evidence suggests that dry needling can be effective for improving pain intensity and pain-related disability in individuals with neck pain symptoms associated with TrPs at the short-term. No significant effects on pressure pain sensitivity or cervical range of motion were observed.

Introduction: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major health, social, and economic problem. Most of the subjects who suffer from chronic musculoskeletal pain present processes of central sensitization. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation are the two most commonly used clinical measures of this. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of physical therapy on temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBSCO, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS databases. Different mesh terms and key words were combined for the search strategy, with the aim of encompassing all studies that have used any type of physical therapy treatment in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and have measured both TS and CPM.Results: Eighteen studies remained for qualitative analysis and 16 for quantitative analysis. Statistically significant differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained for TS (–0.21, 95% CI = –0.39 to –0.03, Z = 2.50, P = 0.02, N = 721) and CPM (0.34, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.56, Z = 2.99, P = 0.003, N = 680) in favor of physical therapy as compared with control. Manual therapy produces a slight improvement in TS, and physical therapy modalities in general improve CPM. No significant differences between the subgroups of the meta-analysis were found. The methodological quality of the studies was high.Conclusions: Physical therapy produces a slight improvement in central sensitization (CS)–related variables, with TS decreased and CPM increased when compared with a control group in patients with CMP. Only significant differences in TS were identified in the manual therapy subgroup.

Knee and hip osteoarthritis are highly prevalent in the older population. Management of osteoarthritis-related pain includes conservative or surgical treatment. Although knee or hip joint replacement is associated with positive outcomes, up to 30% of patients report postoperative pain in the first two years. This study aimed to synthesize current evidence on prognostic factors for predicting postoperative pain after knee or hip replacement. An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted to summarize the magnitude and quality of the evidence for prognostic preoperative factors predictive of postoperative chronic pain (>6 months after surgery) in patients who had received knee or hip replacement. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception up to 5 August 2022 for reviews published in the English language. A narrative synthesis, a risk of bias assessment, and an evaluation of the evidence confidence were performed. Eighteen reviews (nine on knee surgery, four on hip replacement, and seven on both hip/knee replacement) were included. From 44 potential preoperative prognostic factors, just 20 were judged as having high or moderate confidence for robust findings. Race, opioid use, preoperative function, neuropathic pain symptoms, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, other pain sites, fear of movement, social support, preoperative pain, mental health, coping strategies, central sensitization-associated symptoms, and depression had high/moderate confidence for an association with postoperative chronic pain. Some comorbidities such as heart disease, stroke, lung disease, nervous system disorders, and poor circulation had high/moderate confidence for no association with postoperative chronic pain. This review has identified multiple preoperative factors (i.e., sociodemographic, clinical, psychological, cognitive) associated with postoperative chronic pain after knee or hip replacement. These factors may be used for identifying individuals at a risk of developing postoperative chronic pain. Further research can investigate the impact of using such prognostic data on treatment decisions and patient outcomes.

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