Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of lidocaine injection, botulinum toxin injection, and dry needling to trigger points in myofascial pain syndrome

Open access
Kamanli, A., Kaya, A., Ardicoglu, O., Ozgocmen, S., Zengin, F. Ozkurt, Bayık, Y.·2005·Rheumatology International

Abstract

Background: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is one of the most common causes of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Several methods have been recommended for the inactivation of trigger points (TrP). Objectives: This prospective, single-blind study was proposed to compare TrP injection with botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) to dry needling and lidocaine injection in MPS. Methods: Eighty-seven trigger points (cervical and/or periscapular regions) in 23 female and six male patients with MPS were treated and randomly assigned to three groups: lidocaine injection (n=10, 32 TrP), dry needling (n=10, 33 TrP), and BTX-A injection (n=9, 22 TrP). Outcome measures: Clinical assessment including cervical range of motion, TrP pain pressure threshold (PPT), pain scores (PS), and visual analog scales for pain, fatigue, and work disability were evaluated at entry and the end of the 4th week. Additionally, depression and anxiety were evaluated with the Hamilton depression and anxiety rating scales, and quality of life was assessed using the Nottingham health profile (NHP). The subjects were also asked to describe side effects. Injection procedure: One milliliter of 0.5% lidocaine was administered to each TrP in the lidocaine injection group, 10–20 IU of BTX-A to each TrP in the BTX-A group, and dry needling to each TrP in the last group, followed by stretching of the muscle groups involved. The patients were instructed to continue their home exercise programs. Results: Pain pressure thresholds and PS significantly improved in all three groups. In the lidocaine group, PPT values were significantly higher than in the dry needle group, and PS were significantly lower than in both the BTX-A and dry needle groups. In all, visual analog scores significantly decreased in the lidocaine injection and BTX-A groups and did not significantly change in the dry needle group. Disturbance during the injection procedure was lowest in the lidocaine injection group. Quality of life scores assessed by NHP significantly improved in the lidocaine and BTX-A groups but not in the dry needle group. Depression and anxiety scores significantly improved only in the BTX-A-injected group. Conclusions: Injection is more practical and rapid, since it causes less disturbance than dry needling and is more cost effective than BTX-A injection, and seems the treatment of choice in MPS. On the other hand, BTX-A could be selectively used in MPS patients resistant to conventional treatments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00296-004-0485-6

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 343

Metadata

Authors
Kamanli, A., Kaya, A., Ardicoglu, O., Ozgocmen, S., Zengin, F. O., & Bayık, Y.
Venue
Rheumatology International
Published
2004-09-15
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
604-611
ISSN
  • 0172-8172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-160X
OpenAlex
W2150907451
Cited by
343
References
0
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of lidocaine injection, botulinum toxin injection, and dry needling to trigger points in myofascial pain syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00296-004-0485-6
The paper
Kamanli, A., Kaya, A., Ardicoglu, O., Ozgocmen, S., Zengin, F. O., & Bayık, Y. (2005). Comparison of lidocaine injection, botulinum toxin injection, and dry needling to trigger points in myofascial pain syndrome. Rheumatology International. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-004-0485-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.