T t OBJECTIVES:To investigate the effectiveness of dry needling in addition to evidence-based personalized physical therapy treatment in the treatment of shoulder pain. T t METHODS:One hundred twenty patients with nonspecific shoulder pain were randomly allocated into 2 parallel groups: (1) personalized, evidencebased physical therapy treatment; and (2) trigger point dry needling in addition to personalized, evidence-based physical therapy treatment. Patients were assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was pain assessed by a visual analog scale at 3 months, and secondary variables were joint range-of-motion limitations, Constant-Murley score for pain and function, and number of active MTrPs. Clinical efficacy was assessed using intention-to-treat analysis. T t RESULTS:Of the 120 enrolled patients, 63 were randomly assigned to the control group and 57 to the intervention group. There were no significant differences in outcome between the 2 treatment groups. Both groups showed improvement over time. T t CONCLUSION:Dry needling did not offer benefits in addition to personalized, evidencebased physical therapy treatment for patients with nonspecific shoulder pain. T t LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapy, level 1b.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of treating myofascial trigger points [TrPs] with dry needling [DN] compared to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [PENS]. Method: In this clinical trial, 122 subjects suffering from non-specific chronic low back pain [CLBP] were treated. They were randomly distributed into two treatment groups: one taking PENS and the other taking DN of TrPs on the deep lumbar paraspinal muscles [lumbar multifidi], quadratus lumborum, and gluteus medius. Four variables were measured: perceived pain and sleep quality using a visual analog scale [VAS], pressure-pain tolerance threshold on TrPs with an algometer, and quality of life assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index.Results: At least one TrP was found in all patients, most commonly situated in the quadratus lumborum muscle [97.6 percent]. The improvement achieved for both treatment groups was similar in all the measured variables, although the DN group carried out fewer sessions than the PENS group.Conclusions: It could be concluded that the effectiveness of DN is comparable to that of PENS and, therefore, it may be considered as another useful tool with limited adverse effects within the multidisciplinary approach required in the management of non-specific CLBP.

It is essential to understand the impact of social inequalities on the risk of COVID-19 infection in order to mitigate the social consequences of the pandemic. With this aim, the objective of our study was to analyze the effect of socioeconomic inequalities, both at the individual and area of residence levels, on the probability of COVID-19 confirmed infection, and its variations across three pandemic waves. We conducted a retrospective cohort study and included data from all individuals tested for COVID-19 during the three waves of the pandemic, from March to December 2020 (357,989 individuals) in Aragón (Spain). We studied the effect of inequalities on the risk of having a COVID-19 confirmed diagnosis after being tested using multilevel analyses with two levels of aggregation: individuals and basic healthcare area of residence (deprivation level and type of zone). Inequalities in the risk of COVID-19 confirmed infection were observed at both the individual and area level. There was a predominance of low-paid employees living in deprived areas. Workers with low salaries, unemployed and people on minimum integration income or who no longer receive the unemployment allowance, had a higher probability of COVID-19 infection than workers with salaries ≥ €18,000 per year. Inequalities were greater in women and in the second wave. The deprivation level of areas of residence influenced the risk of COVID-19 infection, especially in the second wave. It is necessary to develop individual and area coordinated measures by areas in the control, diagnosis and treatment of the epidemic, in order to avoid an increase in the already existing inequalities.

Knowing what real use is made of health services by immigrant population is of great interest. The objectives are to analyze the use of primary care services by immigrants compared to Spanish nationals and to analyze these differences in relation to geographic origin. Retrospective observational study of all primary care visits made in 26 urban health centers. Main variable: total number of health centre visits/year. Dependent variables: type of clinician requested; type of attention, and origin of immigrants. The independent variable was nationality. Statistics were obtained from the electronic medical records. The 4,933,521 appointments made in 2007 were analyzed for a reference population of 594,145 people (11.15 % immigrants). The adjusted annual frequency for nationals was 8.3, versus whereas 4.6 for immigrants. The immigrant population makes less use of primary care services than national population. This is evident for all age groups and regardless of the immigrants’ countries of origin. This result is important when planning health care resources for immigrant population.