Lack of standardization in dry needling dosage and adverse event documentation limits outcome and safety reports: a scoping review of randomized clinical trials

Duration of Electro-Dry Needling Does Not Change the Pain Response After Repeated Nociceptive Thermal Stimuli in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Randomized Intervention Study

“…One possible reason for mixed outcomes from DN studies may be a lack of standardization for intervention procedures. 10 , 11 , 47 It is not uncommon to see investigations where needle retention time varies from less than 10 minutes, 48 to 20 minutes, 4 or even up to 60 minutes. 49 What's remarkable is that despite the variation, each of the above studies reported decreases in pain and disability after DN.…”

“… 8 , 9 One reason for the discrepancy may be because of the lack of standardization in the dosage of DN. 10 …”

“…One of the difficulties clinicians face in choosing dosage parameters for EDN is a lack of standardization in the reporting of randomized controlled trials. 10 Furthermore, there is a multitude of parameters that may be considered by the clinician. While depth of needle insertion and the size (eg, diameter, length) of needle utilization is largely dependent upon the current patient, parameters such as the number of needles and time left in place have been obfuscated by lack of consistent reporting.…”

“…While depth of needle insertion and the size (eg, diameter, length) of needle utilization is largely dependent upon the current patient, parameters such as the number of needles and time left in place have been obfuscated by lack of consistent reporting. 10 As it relates to EDN, there is a broad range of treatment durations reported in the literature, ranging from 10 to 30 minutes. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 However, there has been minimal effort made to compare the different treatment durations against each other.…”

Dry Needling in a Multimodal Rehabilitation Protocol Following Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery: A randomized double-blinded sham- controlled trial

“…The nding of the current study regarding postoperative shoulder pain and reported ROMs were consistent with those of Arias-Buría et al's, which found no statistically signi cant differences between the MRh alone and MRh with a single session of MTrP-DN for patients with a history of RCR or patients who had proximal humeral fracture treated with open reduction and internal xation using a PHILOS plate (8). Due to lack of standardization in MTrP-DN dosage(34) and also based on the ndings of the Arias-Buría's study, we decided to implement more sessions of MTrP-DN along with the MRh in order to determine whether more sessions of MTrP-DN would reduce the patients' postoperative shoulder pain. The ndings of our study were also consistent with those of Halle et al's, which found no superiority…”