↓ Skip to main content

Trigger Point Needling: Techniques and Outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Current Pain and Headache Reports, May 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
311 Mendeley
Title
Trigger Point Needling: Techniques and Outcome
Published in
Current Pain and Headache Reports, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11916-012-0279-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Vulfsons, Motti Ratmansky, Leonid Kalichman

Abstract

In this review we provide the updates on last years' advancements in basic science, imaging methods, efficacy, and safety of dry needling of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). The latest studies confirmed that dry needling is an effective and safe method for the treatment of MTrPs when provided by adequately trained physicians or physical therapists. Recent basic studies have confirmed that at the site of an active MTrP there are elevated levels of inflammatory mediators, known to be associated with persistent pain states and myofascial tenderness and that this local milieu changes with the occurrence of local twitch response. Two new modalities, sonoelastography and magnetic resonance elastography, were recently introduced allowing noninvasive imaging of MTrPs. MTrP dry needling, at least partially, involves supraspinal pain control via midbrain periaqueductal gray matter activation. A recent study demonstrated that distal muscle needling reduces proximal pain by means of the diffuse noxious inhibitory control. Therefore, in a patient too sensitive to be needled in the area of the primary pain source, the treatment can be initiated with distal 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 311 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 306 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 20%
Student > Master 53 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 10%
Other 22 7%
Researcher 21 7%
Other 69 22%
Unknown 53 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 68 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 19 6%
Unknown 65 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,525,563
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#128
of 798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,031
of 163,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 163,862 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.