| Title |
Comparison of dry needling and physiotherapy in treatment of myofascial pain syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-013-2448-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seyed Mansoor Rayegani, Masume Bayat, Mohammad Hasan Bahrami, Seyed Ahmad Raeissadat, Elham Kargozar |
| Abstract |
To compare the effects of dry needling and physiotherapy in treatment of myofascial pain syndrome, a randomized controlled trial was performed on 28 patients with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) of upper trapezius muscle in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Center of Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital from April 2009 to April 2010. After matching the age, sex, duration of symptoms, pain severity, and quality of life measures, subjects were randomly assigned into two subgroups of case (dry needling) and control (physiotherapy). One week and 1 month after receiving standard therapeutic modalities, outcomes and intragroup and intergroup changes in pain severity, pressure pain of trigger point (TP), and quality of life measures were evaluated and compared. After 1 month, both the physiotherapy and dry needling groups had decreased resting, night, and activity pain levels (p < 0.05). Pressure pain threshold of TP and some scores of quality of life (SF-36) were improved (p < 0.05). Overall results were similar in both groups. It seems that both physiotherapy modalities and dry needling have equal effect on myofascial pain of the upper trapezius muscle. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 330 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 327 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 63 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 53 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 63 | 19% |
| Unknown | 76 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 124 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 80 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 13 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Unknown | 83 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#6,024,750
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#897
of 2,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,216
of 306,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 306,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.