To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Electrical Dry Needling Vs Non-Invasive Multicomponent Intervention For Chronic Low Back Pain

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
June 2024

Electrical Dry Needling Vs Non-Invasive Multicomponent Intervention For Chronic Low Back Pain

Vol: 306| Issue: 6| Number:52| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Electrical dry needling versus a non-invasive multicomponent intervention in the treatment of myofascial trigger points in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomised clinical trial.

Clin Rehabil . 2024 Mar;38(3):347-360.

Contributing Authors:
IC Lara-Palomo E Antequera-Soler M Fernandez-Sanchez AM Castro-Sanchez H Garcia-Lopez

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Sixty-four patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to receive electrical dry needling (n=32) or a non-invasive multicomponent intervention (n=32). The primary outcome of interest was the pressure pain threshold. Secondary outcomes included pain on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oxford Disability Index (ODI), Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), Roland-Morris Low Back & Disability (RMDQ) q...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue