{"title":"干针的使用-在美国当代临床实践的调查。","authors":"Emilio J Puentedura, Keri Maywhort, Stephanie Pascoe, Bradford Tracy, Adam Weaver, Millicent Weber, Dominic Severino, Shane Koppenhaver","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2025.2503999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dry needling (DN) is a skilled intervention commonly used for pain relief and the management of movement disorders in neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Although systematic reviews indicate its effectiveness, variations in treatment parameters exist. This study surveyed U.S. healthcare professionals who utilize DN, examining their clinical techniques, rationale, and use of electrostimulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic survey was created and distributed via Qualtrics™ to healthcare providers performing DN. The survey link was shared through social media and e-mail, and data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical methods (Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's rho) to identify significant patterns in DN practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,399 healthcare providers completed the survey, predominantly physical therapists (93.3%) with an average of 13.5 years of clinical experience and 5.2 years in DN. Most worked in outpatient orthopedics (90.3%). Common DN techniques included trigger point needling (95.8%) and deep needling (82.0%), with 44.5% using periosteal pecking. The majority of practitioners used up to 4 needles per session (68.1%), while 63.8% used more than 4. Electro-stimulation (e-stim) was commonly applied, with 62.5% using it after needle insertion and 55.6% combining it with needle manipulation. Differences in techniques were noted between physical and nonphysical therapists, particularly in the practice of leaving needles in place without manipulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the widespread use and evolving methodologies of DN practices in the U.S. noting the integration of electrostimulation and multimodal approaches. It also highlights inconsistencies in treatment parameters, underscoring the need for standardized protocols to enhance clinical effectiveness and research validity. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of various DN techniques and their applications in neurological rehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The utilization of dry needling - a survey of contemporary clinical practice within the USA.\",\"authors\":\"Emilio J Puentedura, Keri Maywhort, Stephanie Pascoe, Bradford Tracy, Adam Weaver, Millicent Weber, Dominic Severino, Shane Koppenhaver\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10669817.2025.2503999\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dry needling (DN) is a skilled intervention commonly used for pain relief and the management of movement disorders in neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Although systematic reviews indicate its effectiveness, variations in treatment parameters exist. This study surveyed U.S. healthcare professionals who utilize DN, examining their clinical techniques, rationale, and use of electrostimulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic survey was created and distributed via Qualtrics™ to healthcare providers performing DN. The survey link was shared through social media and e-mail, and data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical methods (Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's rho) to identify significant patterns in DN practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,399 healthcare providers completed the survey, predominantly physical therapists (93.3%) with an average of 13.5 years of clinical experience and 5.2 years in DN. Most worked in outpatient orthopedics (90.3%). Common DN techniques included trigger point needling (95.8%) and deep needling (82.0%), with 44.5% using periosteal pecking. The majority of practitioners used up to 4 needles per session (68.1%), while 63.8% used more than 4. Electro-stimulation (e-stim) was commonly applied, with 62.5% using it after needle insertion and 55.6% combining it with needle manipulation. Differences in techniques were noted between physical and nonphysical therapists, particularly in the practice of leaving needles in place without manipulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the widespread use and evolving methodologies of DN practices in the U.S. noting the integration of electrostimulation and multimodal approaches. It also highlights inconsistencies in treatment parameters, underscoring the need for standardized protocols to enhance clinical effectiveness and research validity. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of various DN techniques and their applications in neurological rehabilitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2025.2503999\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2025.2503999","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:干针(DN)是一种技术干预,通常用于缓解疼痛和神经肌肉骨骼疾病的运动障碍的管理。虽然系统评价表明其有效性,但治疗参数存在差异。本研究调查了使用DN的美国医疗保健专业人员,检查了他们的临床技术、原理和电刺激的使用。方法:创建电子调查,并通过Qualtrics™分发给执行DN的医疗保健提供者。通过社交媒体和电子邮件分享调查链接,并使用非参数统计方法(Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's rho)分析数据,以确定DN实践中的重要模式。结果:共有1399名医疗保健提供者完成了调查,主要是物理治疗师(93.3%),平均临床经验为13.5年,DN为5.2年。门诊骨科工作最多(90.3%)。常见的DN技术包括触发点针刺(95.8%)和深层针刺(82.0%),骨膜穿刺(44.5%)。大多数从业人员每次至多使用4根针头(68.1%),63.8%使用4根以上。电刺激(e-stim)是常用的治疗方法,其中62.5%的患者在插入针后使用电刺激,55.6%的患者将电刺激与针刺结合使用。注意到物理治疗师和非物理治疗师在技术上的差异,特别是在没有操作的情况下将针头留在原地的做法。结论:本研究强调了美国DN实践的广泛使用和不断发展的方法,注意到电刺激和多模式方法的整合。它还强调了治疗参数的不一致性,强调了标准化方案以提高临床有效性和研究有效性的必要性。未来的研究应关注各种DN技术的远期疗效及其在神经康复中的应用。
The utilization of dry needling - a survey of contemporary clinical practice within the USA.
Background: Dry needling (DN) is a skilled intervention commonly used for pain relief and the management of movement disorders in neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Although systematic reviews indicate its effectiveness, variations in treatment parameters exist. This study surveyed U.S. healthcare professionals who utilize DN, examining their clinical techniques, rationale, and use of electrostimulation.
Methods: An electronic survey was created and distributed via Qualtrics™ to healthcare providers performing DN. The survey link was shared through social media and e-mail, and data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical methods (Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's rho) to identify significant patterns in DN practices.
Results: A total of 1,399 healthcare providers completed the survey, predominantly physical therapists (93.3%) with an average of 13.5 years of clinical experience and 5.2 years in DN. Most worked in outpatient orthopedics (90.3%). Common DN techniques included trigger point needling (95.8%) and deep needling (82.0%), with 44.5% using periosteal pecking. The majority of practitioners used up to 4 needles per session (68.1%), while 63.8% used more than 4. Electro-stimulation (e-stim) was commonly applied, with 62.5% using it after needle insertion and 55.6% combining it with needle manipulation. Differences in techniques were noted between physical and nonphysical therapists, particularly in the practice of leaving needles in place without manipulation.
Conclusion: This study highlights the widespread use and evolving methodologies of DN practices in the U.S. noting the integration of electrostimulation and multimodal approaches. It also highlights inconsistencies in treatment parameters, underscoring the need for standardized protocols to enhance clinical effectiveness and research validity. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of various DN techniques and their applications in neurological rehabilitation.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician