Show simple item record

dc.contributorUniversitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Ciències de la Salut Blanquerna
dc.contributor.authorMartínez Silván, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorSantomé Martinez, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorChampón-Chekroun, Angélica María
dc.contributor.authorVelázquez Saornil, Jorge
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Merino, Sergio
dc.contributor.authorCos-Morera, Miquel Angel
dc.contributor.authorMorral Fernández, Antoni
dc.contributor.authorMascaró-Vilella, Alfons
dc.contributor.authorRicis-Guerra, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Bol, Fernando
dc.contributor.authorPosada-Franco, Víctor
dc.contributor.authorSebastiá, Vicente
dc.contributor.authorCano-Herrera, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorRamírez-Parenteau, Christophe
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-03T08:19:50Z
dc.date.available2024-03-03T08:19:50Z
dc.date.created2022-08
dc.date.issued2022-10
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/3975
dc.description.abstractObjective To review the current scientific evidence for the clinical use of percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) in musculoskeletal conditions. Methods A systematic electronic search was performed in biomedical databases. Only clinical studies on human subjects using PNE on musculoskeletal pathologies were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Treatment protocols were described, and primary outcomes (pain, injury-related function, and tissue structure) were compared against other treatment modalities or control groups in short (<1 month), mid (1-3 months) and long term (>3 months). Results Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria (14 comparative studies and 7 case series). Sixty-two percent were at moderate to high risk of bias. PNE was applied in a wide range of injury types (mostly tendon-related), and application protocols were heterogeneous in terms of dosage (intensity: 0.35-6mA; time: 9-90sec), frequency (from twice a week to once every 2 weeks) and treatment duration (1-10 weeks). PNE showed moderate effects on pain at short and mid-term compared to active exercise interventions alone and sham needling. There is limited evidence that PNE improves injury-related function compared to other treatment modalities and no evidence of tissue structure improvement after PNE application. Conclusion There is paucity of high-quality clinical studies about PNE in musculoskeletal conditions and lack of consensus about treatment indications and application protocols. Although a moderate effect on pain at short and mid-term has been documented, further research is needed.ca
dc.format.extent15 p.ca
dc.language.isoengca
dc.publisherElsevierca
dc.relation.ispartofApunts: medicina de l'esport, 2022, 57(216): 100396ca
dc.rights© Consell Català de l'Esport i Futbol Club Barcelonaca
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subject.otherElectròlisi percutàniaca
dc.subject.otherAparell locomotor -- Ferides i lesionsca
dc.subject.otherRessenyes sistemàtiques (Investigació mèdica)ca
dc.titleClinical use of percutaneous needle electrolysis in musculoskeletal injuries: a critical and systematic review of the literatureca
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleca
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapca
dc.subject.udc615ca
dc.subject.udc616.7ca
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apunsm.2022.100396ca
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionca


Files in this item

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Consell Català de l'Esport i Futbol Club Barcelona
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Share on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on FacebookShare on TelegramShare on WhatsappPrint