Patient-friendly summary
vs. standard care
Standard care often includes medications and physical therapy. Dry needling is an additional treatment option that can be more effective.
If you read nothing else
Bottom line
Worth discussing with your provider if you have low back pain and other treatments haven't helped.
Moderate evidencePublished
Evidence hierarchy
Study participants
patients with low back pain
Study Summary
Background
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common source of pain in primary care and pain clinics, characterized by trigger points within muscles or fascia. Low back pain is a major health problem causing medical expenses, absenteeism, and disability. There are many treatment options for MPS including physical exercise, trigger point massage, and dry needling. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence for dry needling treatment of myofascial pain in patients with low back pain.
What They Did
The researchers conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials published from 2000-2023 that examined dry needling for myofascial pain in patients with lumbar pain. They searched PubMed/Medline and PEDro databases using specific search terms. From 509 initial records identified, they excluded 70 published before 2000, leaving 439 studies. Of these, 92 were RCTs or meta-analyses, but 86 were excluded for various reasons (not related to dry needling treatment, not in English, duplicates, etc.).
The final review included 6 studies: 2 meta-analyses and 4 randomized controlled trials.
What They Found
The studies compared dry needling to various other treatments including acupuncture, sham dry needling, laser therapy, physical therapy, local anesthetic injection, ischemic compression, and neuroscience education. Despite variation in outcomes and follow-up periods, the studies consistently showed that dry needling can decrease post-intervention pain intensity and pain disability. One meta-analysis of 11 studies with 802 patients showed dry needling patients had significantly lower pain intensity (-1.06, p=0.003) and pain disability (-0.76, p=0.03) compared to other treatments. Another meta-analysis of 16 studies with 1,233 patients found dry needling superior to sham needling for pain intensity and functional disability.
Individual RCTs showed that larger needle diameters (0.9mm) were more effective than thinner needles, and combining dry needling with other treatments could be more beneficial than dry needling alone. However, follow-up results were variable, with some studies showing no differences between treatments at longer-term follow-up.
What This Means
Dry needling appears to be an effective, low-cost treatment with minimal side effects for myofascial pain in patients with acute and chronic low back pain. It offers particular advantages for patients who have restrictions for oral treatments due to polypharmacy, comorbidities, or concerns about painkiller overuse. The treatment can decrease pain intensity and disability in the short term, though long-term effectiveness remains unclear. Clinicians may consider dry needling as a useful adjunct to other therapies for reducing pain intensity, disability, medical expenses, and absenteeism.
However, more high-quality studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to clarify the long-term outcomes and optimal treatment protocols.
Key Findings
| Finding | Detail | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Dry needling reduces post-intervention pain intensity | Meta-analysis showed standardized mean difference of -1.06 (p=0.003) favoring dry needling over other treatments | High |
| Pain disability significantly decreased with dry needling | Patients treated with dry needling had lower pain disability (-0.76, p=0.03) compared to other treatments | High |
| Larger needle diameters more effective | 0.9mm needles showed greater pain reduction (2.16±1.64) compared to 0.25mm (4.15±2.37) and 0.5mm (4.05±2.51) needles | Medium |
| Follow-up results are variable | Long-term effectiveness unclear, with some studies showing no differences between treatments at follow-up periods | Medium |
| Combination therapy may be superior | Dry needling plus other treatments showed better pain intensity results than dry needling alone | Medium |
| Spinal mobility and quality of life improved | Some studies showed significant improvements in spinal mobility measures and quality of life scores | Low |
Meta-analysis showed standardized mean difference of -1.06 (p=0.003) favoring dry needling over other treatments
Patients treated with dry needling had lower pain disability (-0.76, p=0.03) compared to other treatments
0.9mm needles showed greater pain reduction (2.16±1.64) compared to 0.25mm (4.15±2.37) and 0.5mm (4.05±2.51) needles
Long-term effectiveness unclear, with some studies showing no differences between treatments at follow-up periods
Dry needling plus other treatments showed better pain intensity results than dry needling alone
Some studies showed significant improvements in spinal mobility measures and quality of life scores
Strengths
- Comprehensive systematic review methodology
- Included both meta-analyses and individual RCTs
- Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Focused specifically on low back pain population
Limitations
- Only 6 studies met inclusion criteria from 509 initial records
- High heterogeneity in study designs and interventions
- Variable and often short follow-up periods
- Limited evidence for long-term effectiveness
Key Takeaways for Patients
What This Means for You
- 01Dry needling can help reduce muscle pain and improve function in people with low back pain
- 02The treatment appears safe with minimal side effects and may be good for people who can't take pain medications
- 03Thicker needles may work better than thinner ones, though both are generally well-tolerated
- 04Combining dry needling with other treatments like physical therapy may be more effective than dry needling alone
- 05More research is needed to understand how long the benefits last
Read the Full Paper
Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
View Full Study