Discrepancy between prevalence and perceived effectiveness of treatment methods in myofascial pain syndrome: Results of a cross-sectional, nationwide survey

Background: Myofascial pain is a common dysfunction with a lifetime prevalence affecting up to 85% of the general population. Current guidelines for the management of myofascial pain are not available. In this study we investigated how physicians on the basis of prescription behaviour evaluate the effectiveness of treatment options in their management of myofascial pain. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide survey with a standardized questionnaire among 332 physicians (79.8% male, 25.6% female, 47.5 +/- 9.6 years) experienced in treating patients with myofascial pain. Recruitment of physicians took place at three German meetings of pain therapists, rheumatologists and orthopaedists, respectively. Physicians estimated the prevalence of myofascial pain amongst patients in their practices, stated what treatments they used routinely and then rated the perceived treatment effectiveness on a six-point scale (with 1 being excellent). Data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. Results: The estimated overall prevalence of active myofascial trigger points is 46.1 +/- 27.4%. Frequently prescribed treatments are analgesics, mainly metamizol/paracetamol (91.6%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/coxibs (87.0%) or weak opioids (81.8%), and physical therapies, mainly manual therapy (81.1%), TENS (72.9%) or acupuncture (60.2%). Overall effectiveness ratings for analgesics (2.9 +/- 0.7) and physical therapies were moderate (2.5 +/- 0.8). Effectiveness ratings of the various treatment options between specialities were widely variant. 54.3% of all physicians characterized the available treatment options as insufficient. Conclusions: Myofascial pain was estimated a prevalent condition. Despite a variety of commonly prescribed treatments, the moderate effectiveness ratings and the frequent characterizations of the available treatments as insufficient suggest an urgent need for clinical research to establish evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome

Dry Needling for Spine Related Disorders: a Scoping Review

Introduction/Background: The depth and breadth of research on dry needling (DN) has not been evaluated specifically for symptomatic spine related disorders (SRD) from myofascial trigger points (TrP), disc, nerve and articular structures not due to serious pathologies. Current literature appears to support DN for treatment of TrP. Goals of this review include identifying research published on DN treatment for SRD, sites of treatment and outcomes studied. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Levac et al.’s five part methodological framework to determine the current state of the literature regarding DN for patients with SRD. Results: Initial and secondary search strategies yielded 55 studies in the cervical (C) region (71.43%) and 22 in the thoracolumbar-pelvic (TLP) region (28.57%). Most were randomized controlled trials (60% in C, 45.45% in TLP) and clinical trials (18.18% in C, 22.78% in TLP). The most commonly treated condition was TrP for both the C and TLP regions. In the C region, DN was provided to 23 different muscles, with the trapezius as treatment site in 41.88% of studies. DN was applied to 31 different structures in the TLP region. In the C region, there was one treatment session in 23 studies (41.82%) and 2–6 treatments in 25 (45.45%%). For the TLP region, one DN treatment was provided in 8 of the 22 total studies (36.36%) and 2–6 in 9 (40.9%). The majority of experimental designs had DN as the sole intervention. For both C and TLP regions, visual analogue scale, pressure pain threshold and range of motion were the most common outcomes. Conclusion: For SRD, DN was primarily applied to myofascial structures for pain or TrP diagnoses. Many outcomes were improved regardless of diagnosis or treatment parameters. Most studies applied just one treatment which may not reflect common clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine optimal treatment duration and frequency. Most studies looked at DN as the sole intervention. It is unclear whether DN alone or in addition to other treatment procedures would provide superior outcomes. Functional outcome tools best suited to tracking the outcomes of DN for SRD should be explored.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00310-