Skip to main content

Efficacy of dry needling in reducing spasticity after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal
Complementary therapies in medicine (Q1)
Published
15 August 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Xinyi Yuan, Ziwen Wang, Huiru Zhang, Yongqiang Li, Dianhuai Meng
PMID
42603654
DOI
10.1016/j.ctim.2026.103420

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) in reducing spasticity among post-stroke patients through meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Embase were searched up to April 2026, alongside manual searches of reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (>18 years) with post-stroke spasticity, investigating DN alone or as part of a multimodal intervention, were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data, primarily focusing on changes in the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale (MMAS). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven RCTs (276 patients) were included. Overall, DN significantly reduced spasticity compared to the control group (mean difference [MD] = -0.65). DN was effective for both upper (MD = -0.40) and lower limbs (MD = -1.02), with the most robust effect in ankle plantar flexors (MD = -1.05). Significant improvements occurred whether DN was compared to sham interventions (MD = -0.45) or added to conventional neurorehabilitation (MD = -0.76). While study quality was generally high (PEDro scores 5-9/10), GRADE certainty was Moderate to Low due to small sample sizes and blinding bias. CONCLUSIONS: DN is an effective short-term intervention and a potent adjunct to standard rehabilitation for reducing post-stroke spasticity in both upper and lower extremities. Further research is needed to evaluate its long-term functional impact.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.