↓ Skip to main content

The effect of dry needling in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
20 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
431 Mendeley
Title
The effect of dry needling in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10067-012-2112-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Levent Tekin, Selim Akarsu, Oğuz Durmuş, Engin Çakar, Ümit Dinçer, Mehmet Zeki Kıralp

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that dry needling is more effective than sham dry needling in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). This was a prospective, double-blinded, randomized-controlled study conducted in an outpatient clinic. Thirty-nine subjects with established myofascial trigger points were randomized into two groups: study group (N = 22) and placebo group (N = 17). Dry needling was applied using acupuncture needles, and sham dry needling was applied in the placebo group. The treatment was composed of six sessions which were performed in 4 weeks; the first four sessions were performed twice a week (for 2 weeks) and the last two, once a week (for 2 weeks). The visual analog scale (VAS) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) were used. When compared with the initial values, VAS scores of the dry needling group following the first and sixth sessions were significantly lower (p = 0.000 and p < 0.000, respectively). When VAS scores were compared between the groups, the first assessment scores were found to be similar, but the second and third assessment scores were found to be significantly lower in the dry needling group (p = 0.034 and p < 0.001, respectively). When SF-36 scores of the groups were compared, both the physical and mental component scores were found to be significantly increased in the dry needling group, whereas only those of vitality scores were found to be increased significantly in the placebo (sham needling) group. The present study shows that the dry needling treatment is effective in relieving the pain and in improving the quality of life of patients with MPS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 431 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 423 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 88 20%
Student > Master 82 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 49 11%
Other 38 9%
Student > Postgraduate 29 7%
Other 77 18%
Unknown 68 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 197 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 100 23%
Sports and Recreations 18 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 1%
Neuroscience 6 1%
Other 20 5%
Unknown 84 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,427,729
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#125
of 3,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,819
of 185,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 185,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.