Dan Rhon

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT

@danrhon @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT Editor of JOSPT

Trigger point #dryneedling is NOT effective for shoulder pain: a response to JOSPT’s Hando et al (2026) clinical trial #AAMTFellowship #SAPS osteopractor.wordpress.com/2026/01/07/tri…

Link to article: acrjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ac…

Conflict of interest reporting in trials/guidelines on CSI for knee #osteoarthritis 29% of trials & 14.3% of guidelines had no COI statement. 13.3% of trials & 42.9% of guidelines reported a COI. Discrepancies existed between disclosures in manuscripts vs public databases.

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT Last post- I like discussion but not sure this is productive. 1 difference is many of my trials have been null. Disappointing. I’m not benefiting from results. ALL your trials show the treatment u train people in is superior. That’s amazing -good on you! I haven’t been as lucky

Just as I disclose (on all RCTs) my involvement in teaching continuing education courses (AAMT) in manual therapy, you should also (OMTA). Academics, DoD staff, doesn’t matter. We all have POTENTIAL competing interests and they should be voluntarily disclosed on the front end. Further, you should reach out to @JOSPT to request they add a potential competing interest for your colleague (Dr. Josh Cleland) — as the reader needs to know one of the co-authors of the Hando et al (2026) trial is an Editor for the very journal it was published within (JOSPT).

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT Not publishing exact duration of symptoms doesn’t invalidate findings though? These were all care-seeking pnts. I’ve published approx same number of trials, including in NEJM, Annals of IM, & JAMA, & duration of symptoms not always required. I agree is nice to have when possible.

I have been the lead investigator on 9 multi-center RCTs, and never once has any journal not required us to publish data on the duration of symptoms of the patients. We still have no idea if the patients in the Hando et al (2026) trial had shoulder pain for a few days, few weeks, or many years. And if there was a between-group difference at baseline in duration of symptoms? — as this alone may explain the outcome. It is frankly very odd this data was omitted given this was published in @JOSPT when Hando et al (2026) published data on MANY other less important baseline variables. Seems very odd. Did you/Hando collect data on duration of symptoms? The experimental group that Hando et al (2026) called the “dry needling” is likely functioning as a second placebo-needling group. Pricking 1-3 superficial muscles around the neck and shoulder girdle for 5-30 seconds just isn’t a verum dry needling group (insufficient dosage and non meaningful targets). Further, the most common pathological lesions in shoulder pain (based on MRI and MSKU imaging studies) were not targeted. Importantly, the treatment given cannot be reproduced by any future research team (or practicing clinicians) as Hando et al (2026) used manual palpation (which a recent meta-analysis found unreliable and not valid for determining trigger point location) to determine which 1-3 superficial muscles to prick on each patient, on each session, and by each therapist. In short, there are several major design flaws and some important data wasn’t disclosed/published. And this seems quite alarming for a trial published in JOSPT.

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT I don’t disagree tht should have been disclosed. I’m surprised it wasn’t. I was more speaking about my role, & what I should have disclosed? 99% of clinics research pubs include authors w academic positions - that alone seems bit of stretch to invalidate findings of this trial?

@danrhon @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT One of the Hando et al (2026) co-authors (Dr. Josh Cleland) is a current Associate Editor of JOSPT = potential conflict of interest when the trial was published in that same journal.

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT I’m not on the editorial board. Never have been. Would be news to me jospt.org/page/about/tea… There aren’t methodological flaws & cloudy statistical methods. I didn’t find those points convincing. There are wrong approaches, but rarely 1 right way. Nothing wrong w his approach

If you are on the editorial team of the journal (as Google appears to support) or are an Associate Editor (in the case of Dr. Cleland) for the very journal that this trial was published in (I.e., JOSPT), then that should be transparently disclosed. As no doubt, as we have detailed in item 9, this can potentially affect the peer-review process and the final content of the article. Given the high impact factor of @JOSPT & the major methodological design flaws and cloudy statistical methods employed in the Hando et al (2026) trial, it appears this may have been a factor for why this RCT made it through peer review.

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT Maybe, but even if so that would be based on publication count (yes/no) & not based on whether the trial results were null. I’d have absolutely nothing to gain whether this showed the intervention to be superior, inferior, or no different. What should I be disclosing exactly?

@danrhon @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT Academics (and DoD staff) have the potential to gain promotion (including higher salaries) additional research grants, and career advancement in part related to the number of peer-reviewed journal publications.

@DrDunning @HandoBen31592 @JoshClelandPT Also, as far as I’m aware, I’ve never been on the JOSPT editorial board or held an AE position with JOSPT. I am a reviewer, but that’s quite different. I’m also not sure what I would have to gain from these results if I were…?

@HandoBen31592 @danrhon @JoshClelandPT What portion of item 9 do you believe to be incorrect? Seems a potential conflict of interest cannot be excluded here. It is just best to report such up front for transparency.

@DrSethPT @JakeMagel @Retlouping @marklaslett_NZ @mismeg77 Not that I’m aware of, but agree it would be an interesting place to look further into.

Any studies looking at PT and its potential to reduce CNS modifying drugs/muscle relaxant prescriptions? This is another huge potential to reduce overmedicalization since these drugs ⬆️ fall-related injuries @JakeMagel @danrhon @Retlouping @marklaslett_NZ @mismeg77

This is a really cool study from @MaxRavnMerkel et al. of the clinical & pathological features of early/late tendinopathy. There are likely implications for rx i.e a focus of calming down the tendon (early) vs more traditional resistance training (late). advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.10…

When science is published and disseminated in non-traditional manner, without peer review, there are implications to consider - an example from the telehealth literature: jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jo… @JOSPT @awmcdevittDPT @JakeMagel @mismeg77

Much of the evidence driving policy for the use of telehealth for musculoskeletal rehabilitation is riddled with conflicts of interest - we need better transparency. @awmcdevittDPT @JakeMagel @mismeg77 pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…

@PTJournal just published paper from @KaitlynFosterPT's PhD dissertation, looking at role of exercise for LBP in preventing subsequent lower extremity! Also, greater doses of exercise were associated w lower risk of subsequent LE injury! pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41239979/ 👏

We're hiring! Join the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center as a Research Physical Therapist and help advance military medicine.  📍 Fort Hood, TX 🏥 Full-time | $90K–$110K Apply now  👉 genevausa.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/CareersAtGenev… #PhysicalTherapy #MilitaryMedicine #ResearchJobs #GenevaFoundation

@ross_prager @MushtaqBilalPhD Also more journals seem to be adopting the “Your Paper, Your Way” submissions w no formatting requirements, but not nearly enough. What if you market to journals, & they use this to properly format any loose unformatted docs we authors submit? win-win

@danrhon @MushtaqBilalPhD Love it!! Thanks for the feedback. We are working on something that is cheaper for researchers - challenge for us is maintaining the human in the loop step is relatively expensive - eventual with full automation the cost will drop even more :)

Formatting manuscripts according to journal guidelines take a lot of time. Improperly formatted papers are simply rejected. Resub app can help you with formatting. It uses AI, and a human expert to ensure your paper is formatted properly. Here's how to use it:

@ross_prager @MushtaqBilalPhD Sounds great! Can’t wait to see! You could offer 500 manuscript reformats/month & would be no different than 10. No one will reach that. My volume is maybe 4-8 per year where I’m corresponding author. More as co-author, but I wouldn’t need this then. Would def use if cost right.

@MushtaqBilalPhD Plus the reformatting is only a part of a resubmission. Part of the pain of resubmission is time to re-add all co-authors to submission platform, resigning all journal specific COIs & agreements, adding in all the admin info to the platform, that supports the submission, etc.

@MushtaqBilalPhD The idea is fantastic! The business model not so much. Starting level allows for 10 manuscript reformats/month ($468/yr fee). There is a very, very tiny proportion of the market that produces that volume. I imagine much more uptake if they also offered a per/manuscript option.

@AmericanAir I already called the Executive Platinum help desk, and unfortunately they weren't much help. They didn't even offer to rebook...I got automatically rebooked by the system. They told me to just get car rental & that you would reimburse me...so I guess that's what we're doing.🤷🏻‍♂️

Hey @AmericanAir - we missed our flight due to inspections that took too long in DFW, and the best you can do is to rebook us getting home 29 hours after our original arrival time? That's just it....see you tomorrow night for your new flight?