Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review of dry needling in sports athletes shows short-term pain relief but uncertain performance benefits.

Systematic review of dry needling in sports athletes shows short-term pain relief but uncertain perf…
Photo by Jona Møller / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider dry needling for short-term pain relief in athletes, but note high uncertainty regarding performance and injury risk benefits.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of dry needling (DN) applied to cervical and related upper-quarter regions, either alone or as an add-on, in a population of sports athletes. The review synthesized data from eight studies with short follow-up periods, comparing DN against sham interventions, no treatment, or active comparators. Safety and tolerability data were not reported across the included studies.

Regarding primary outcomes, DN demonstrated improved pain and shoulder range of motion immediately versus no treatment. However, no differences were observed when comparing DN to active comparators or sham interventions. For hemodynamic indices and inflammatory markers, the results showed inconsistent differences across the studies. Absolute numbers, effect sizes, and p-values were not reported for these specific outcomes.

Key limitations include the short follow-up duration, reliance on proxy endpoints, and the inability to infer effects on next-session performance, training continuity, or injury risk. The certainty of the evidence is rated as highly uncertain, particularly regarding claims of recovery enhancement, performance benefit, or injury prevention. Practice relevance suggests DN may provide short-term symptom modulation in sport athletes, but clinicians should interpret findings regarding performance and injury risk with caution.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Dry needling (DN) is used in sports medicine for myofascial pain, injury and recovery, but athlete-specific effects over time are uncertain. Objective: To synthesize evidence on DN applied to cervical and related upper-quarter regions in athletes, distinguishing (i) symptomatic athlete trials from (ii) post-exertion recovery trials, and to summarize injury-related outcomes only when prospectively reported. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science searched 11 Feb 2026. Study selection: Trials/prospective studies in athletes comparing DN (alone or add-on) with sham/no intervention or active comparators. Two authors independently screened/extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2; ROBINS-I). Eight studies were included. In symptomatic overhead/throwing athletes, DN improved pain and shoulder ROM immediately versus no treatment in one trial, while several trials showed no differences versus active comparators or sham. Recovery trials showed inconsistent differences in hemodynamic indices and inflammatory markers, and their short follow-up and proxy endpoints limit inference about next-session performance, training continuity, or injury risk. DN may provide short-term symptom modulation in sport athletes. Evidence for consistent recovery/readiness enhancement, performance benefit, or injury prevention remains highly uncertain and is constrained by proxy outcome selection and short time windows. Registration: OSF osf.io/fsg6w (11 February 2026). OSF (Open Science Framework; ID: osf.io/fsg6w (11 February 2026).
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.