↓ Skip to main content

Dry Needling for Management of Pain in the Upper Quarter and Craniofacial Region

Overview of attention for article published in Current Pain and Headache Reports, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
Title
Dry Needling for Management of Pain in the Upper Quarter and Craniofacial Region
Published in
Current Pain and Headache Reports, June 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11916-014-0437-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M. Kietrys, Kerstin M. Palombaro, Jeffrey S. Mannheimer

Abstract

Dry needling is a therapeutic intervention that has been growing in popularity. It is primarily used with patients that have pain of myofascial origin. This review provides background about dry needling, myofascial pain, and craniofacial pain. We summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of dry needling. For patients with upper quarter myofascial pain, a 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled studies reported that dry needling is effective in reducing pain (especially immediately after treatment) in patients with upper quarter pain. There have been fewer studies of patients with craniofacial pain and myofascial pain in other regions, but most of these studies report findings to suggest the dry needling may be helpful in reducing pain and improving other pain related variables such as the pain pressure threshold. More rigorous randomized controlled trials are clearly needed to more fully elucidate the effectiveness of dry needling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Unknown 206 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 10%
Other 19 9%
Lecturer 12 6%
Other 45 22%
Unknown 48 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 24%
Sports and Recreations 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 52 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,696,669
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#292
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,162
of 229,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 229,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.