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

Similar 1 Week Outcomes with PENS and Dry Needling for Unilateral Mechanical Neck Pain

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
August 2020

Similar 1 Week Outcomes with PENS and Dry Needling for Unilateral Mechanical Neck Pain

Vol: 9| Issue: 8| Number:4| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Short-Term Effects of PENS versus Dry Needling in Subjects with Unilateral Mechanical Neck Pain and Active Myofascial Trigger Points in Levator Scapulae Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial

J Clin Med. 2020 Jun; 9(6): 1665.

Contributing Authors:
S Garcia-de-Miguel D Pecos-Martin T Larroca-Sanz B Sanz-de-Vicente L Garcia-Montes R Fernandez-Matias T Gallego-Izquierdo

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

Synopsis

Forty-four patients with unilateral mechanical neck pain were randomized to receive either dry needling or percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) at the active myofascial trigger point in the levator scapulae muscle for the relief of pain and improvement in function. The outcomes of interest included pain on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, pressure pain t...

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