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

Conventional Physical Therapy w/ Spinal Manipulation or Electrical Dry Needling for Spinal Stenosis

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

Conventional Physical Therapy w/ Spinal Manipulation or Electrical Dry Needling for Spinal Stenosis

Vol: 306| Issue: 8| Number:71| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

Spine J . 2024 Apr;24(4):590-600.

Contributing Authors:
I Young J Dunning R Butts P Bliton N Zacharko J Garcia F Mourad C Charlebois P Gorby C Fernandez-de-Las-Penas

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

Synopsis

One hundred twenty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized to receive spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63). The primary outcome of interest was pain reduction measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Secondary outcomes included disability (Oswestry D...

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