Cross-Sectional StudyTreatment: Dry NeedlingClinical RelevanceDOI
3 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

This study found that dry needling for muscle pain had mild side effects in almost 20% of patients, but no serious side effects were reported.

Bottom line

Dry needling seems safe with a low risk of serious side effects, but discuss with your provider if considering this treatment.

Moderate evidence

Ask your provider

  • What are the potential side effects of dry needling?
  • What can I expect after the treatment in terms of side effects?
  • How experienced are you with dry needling?

Call your doctor if

  • Severe pain that doesn't go away
  • Signs of infection like redness or swelling

General warning signs for this condition, not side effects of the studied treatment. If any apply to you, contact a clinician promptly.

Try this week

  • Ask your provider about the possible side effects of dry needling.
  • Understand that while mild side effects are common, serious ones are rare.

Possible side effects

  • bruising(7.55%)
  • bleeding(4.65%)
  • pain during treatment(3.01%)
  • pain after treatment(2.19%)
Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

Background

Trigger point dry needling (TrP-DN) is commonly used by physiotherapists to treat myofascial pain, but little research existed on its safety profile. This study addressed the critical need to understand adverse events associated with dry needling practice, as previous safety data came primarily from acupuncture studies, which differ significantly in technique and depth of needle insertion. Understanding safety is essential for informed consent and clinical decision-making.

What They Did

Researchers conducted a 10-month prospective survey of 39 physiotherapists in Ireland who had completed standardized trigger point dry needling training through the David G Simons Academy. Participating physiotherapists recorded all adverse events using two forms: one for mild events (short-term, non-serious) and another for significant events (serious, requiring treatment). The study aimed to collect data on over 10,000 treatments to identify even rare adverse events. Physiotherapists recorded detailed information about each treatment session and any unwanted effects, no matter how minor.

What They Found

Over 7,629 dry needling treatments, 1,463 mild adverse events occurred, representing 19.18% of all treatments. No significant adverse events were reported, giving an estimated upper risk rate of ≤0.04% for serious complications. The most common adverse events were bleeding (7.55% of treatments), bruising (4.65%), pain during treatment (3.01%), and pain after treatment (2.19%). Uncommon events included symptom aggravation (0.88%), drowsiness (0.26%), feeling faint (0.22%), headache (0.14%), and nausea (0.13%).

Rare events included fatigue, altered emotions, shaking, itching, claustrophobia, and numbness, each occurring in less than 0.04% of treatments.

What This Means

This study provides the first comprehensive safety data for trigger point dry needling, showing that while mild adverse events are very common (nearly 1 in 5 treatments), serious complications are extremely rare. The findings suggest dry needling has a favorable safety profile compared to many over-the-counter pain medications. For patients, this means they can expect minor side effects like brief bleeding or bruising in about 1 in 5 treatments, but serious complications are highly unlikely. For clinicians, these data provide evidence-based information for informed consent discussions and support the safety of dry needling when performed by properly trained practitioners.

75/100
Evidence StrengthStrong
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication
19.18%
Treatments with Mild AEs
≤0.04%
Risk of Serious AEs
7,629
Total Treatments
0
Serious Adverse Events

Key Findings

No serious adverse events in 7,629 treatmentsHigh

Zero significant complications with estimated upper risk rate ≤0.04%

Bleeding most common adverse eventMedium

Occurred in 7.55% of treatments (576 cases)

All adverse events were mild and transientHigh

19.18% of treatments had mild AEs but none required medical intervention

Wide variation in AE reporting between practitionersMedium

Rates ranged from 3.13 to 93.1 per 100 treatments among different physiotherapists

Deep dry needling used in majority of treatmentsLow

82.7% of treatments used deep needling, 17.3% used superficial needling

Study Methodology
Study Design
Prospective survey study with 10-month follow-up
Sample Size
39
Duration
10 months
Population
Chartered physiotherapists with standardized dry needling training
Outcome Measures
Mild AE recording form · Significant AE recording form · Treatment counts

Strengths

  • First comprehensive prospective safety study of dry needling
  • Large sample size with over 7,600 treatments
  • Standardized training of participating practitioners
  • Prospective design minimized recall bias

Limitations

  • No significant AEs occurred, so risk estimates are based on statistical calculations
  • Wide variation in AE reporting suggests possible inconsistent definitions
  • Single country study with specific training protocol may limit generalizability
  • Potential under-reporting due to practitioner concerns about liability

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01Dry needling is very safe when performed by properly trained practitioners
  2. 02Minor bleeding or bruising occurs in about 1 in 5 treatments but resolves quickly
  3. 03Serious complications are extremely rare (less than 1 in 2,500 treatments)
  4. 04Temporary pain during or after treatment is normal and expected
  5. 05Most side effects are mild and don't interfere with daily activities

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Deep Versus Superficial Dry Needling for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomised Clinical Trials

Alhakami et al.·Medicina·2025

This systematic review of 8 randomized trials found that both deep and superficial dry needling provide similar short-term pain relief and functional improvement in patients with neck pain and myofascial trigger points. No clinically meaningful differences were found between the two needling depths.

Dry NeedlingRead →
●●●●● LandmarkNarrative Review

Dry Needling in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain

Kalichman, Leonid & Vulfsons, Simon·Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine·2010

Clinical review confirming dry needling as an effective, low-risk treatment for myofascial pain affecting up to 10% of adults. Deep needling shows superior long-term results compared to superficial techniques.

Dry NeedlingRead →
●●●●○ StrongRandomized Controlled Trial

Comparative effects of static, classical, and sham dry needling on muscle properties and autonomic nervous system activity in cervical myofascial pain syndrome

Olaniszyn et al.·Complementary Therapies in Medicine·2026

Classical dynamic dry needling with pistoning and local twitch response elicitation produced greater short-term improvements in pressure pain threshold, muscle stiffness, tone, and perfusion compared to static needling or sham in upper trapezius myofascial pain. Static needling was largely indistinguishable from sham on most outcomes.

Dry NeedlingRead →
●●●●○ StrongNarrative Review

Optimizing Performance and Recovery: Dry Needling of Myofascial Trigger Points in Sports Medicine

Słuchocka et al.·Quality in Sport·2026

This comprehensive review shows dry needling effectively reduces pain, improves muscle function, and accelerates return to sport in athletes when combined with exercise therapy. The technique works through local biochemical changes and central nervous system modulation.

Dry NeedlingRead →