Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Dec 23;25(1):1059.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-08174-7.

Efficacy and safety of low-intensity ultrasound therapy for myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xize Li  1   2 , Yijun Lin  1   2 , Peijue He  1   2 , Qian Wang  3   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of low-intensity ultrasound therapy for myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xize Li et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS) is a common pain disorder characterized by the presence of trigger points within the muscles or fascia. Low-intensity ultrasound therapy, as a noninvasive modality, has indeed found application in the management of MPS, but its efficacy for myofascial pain syndrome has still been controversial. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of low-intensity ultrasound therapy for MPS.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, PEDro, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for RCTs on ultrasound therapy in MPS patients. We included RCTs comparing ultrasound with other therapies or placebo-sham ultrasound. Clinical outcomes included pain scores and physical functional performance. Risk of bias and heterogeneity were assessed. Two authors of the review independently evaluated the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data.

Results: This systematic review included sixteen RCTs involving a total of 1063 participants with MPS. None of the included studies reported adverse events. Comparing with sham or no treatment, the application of low-intensity ultrasound yielded additional benefits for pain (SMD [CI] = - 1.04 [- 1.72, - 0.36], P < 0.0003), with high heterogeneity (χ2 = 116.63, P < 0.00001, I2 = 91%). Patients receiving low-intensity ultrasound had improved on pressure pain threshold. Compared with other treatments, there were no differences in outcomes functional scores.

Conclusions: The current study indicates that low-intensity ultrasound effectively reduces pain intensity in MPS patients. The heterogeneity regarding the parameters of ultrasound, including frequency, intensity, time was found to be high among the included studies. Each therapeutic modality works differently in various situations and may lead to multitudinous effects. The positive impact of low-intensity ultrasound on functional improvement needs to be further analyzed through more high-quality clinical trials with large sample sizes in the future.

Trial registration: This study was registered on the following website: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ . The PROSPERO registered ID is CRD42023472032.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Myofascial pain syndromes; Rehabilitation; Therapeutic ultrasound; Ultrasonic therapy; Ultrasound therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow chart of study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias assessment. Notes: A Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. B Risk of bias graph: review authors’ s judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Patients with MPS in the low-intensity ultrasound group vs sham group or no treatment group. The results of the VAS
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Patients with MPS in the low-intensity ultrasound group vs sham group or no treatment group. The results of PPT
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Patients with MPS in the low-intensity ultrasound group vs other treatment group. The results of the VAS
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Patients with MPS in the low-intensity ultrasound group vs the sham or other treatment group. The results of the NDI
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Borg-Stein J, Simons DG. Focused review: myofascial pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(3 Suppl 1):S40–7, s8–9. - PubMed
    1. Dommerholt J, Hooks T, Finnegan M, Grieve R. A critical overview of the current myofascial pain literature - March 2016. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016;20(2):397–408. - PubMed
    1. Gerber LH, Sikdar S, Armstrong K, Diao G, Heimur J, Kopecky J, et al. A systematic comparison between subjects with no pain and pain associated with active myofascial trigger points. Pm r. 2013;5(11):931–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jaeger B. Myofascial trigger point pain. Alpha Omegan. 2013;106(1–2):14–22. - PubMed
    1. Cerezo-Téllez E, Torres-Lacomba M, Mayoral-del Moral O, Sánchez-Sánchez B, Dommerholt J, Gutiérrez-Ortega C. Prevalence of Myofascial Pain Syndrome in Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study. Pain Med. 2016;17(12):2369–77. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources