Sometimes I wonder whether it is useful to respond to colleagues’ incorrect or misleading statements. Misleading statements appear to be becoming more commonplace today, but that does not mean they should be accepted as facts.
As I outlined in a previous blog, when I read a recent paper by Dunning et al., I was curious whether intra-articular dry needling would be considered to be within the scope of physical therapy practice. After I contacted the PT Boards of the states mentioned in the paper, I was surprised to learn that the majority had no objections to intra-articular needling, which means that it appears to be within the scope of PT practice in those states. As mentioned, several state physical therapy boards did not confirm or deny the issue but reaffirmed longstanding positions that they do not issue declarative opinions regarding the scope of practice unless prompted by a formal complaint or enforcement action.
Sadly, Dunning and colleagues felt compelled to misrepresent my questions to the Boards:
- In my letter to the state boards, I asked only whether intra-articular dry needling falls within the scope of physical therapy practice. At no point did I file a complaint regarding intra-articular needling. Yet, Dunning and colleagues stated in their recent blog that “Dr. Jan Dommerholt (the owner of MyoPain dry needling seminars) sent a letter of complaint and inquiry (bold added-JD) (November 2025) to 26 State Boards of Physical Therapy.” “Therefore, the following response is primarily directed to the Executive members of the 26 State Boards of Physical Therapy that are currently discussing the letter of complaint (from Dr. Dommerholt) about our recent PIEDN trial publication.
- I did not question whether the needling approach described by Dunning and colleagues would be safe. Yet in their blog, the authors stated that my letter questioned “if PIEDN should be considered safe,” and “In his recent letter to 26 State Boards of Physical Therapy, Dr. Jan Dommerholt claimed that ‘intraarticular dry needling’ for knee OA may not be a safe procedure to use by physical therapists.”
- The authors stated that my letter questioned “if our clinical trial should have attained ethical approval from a U.S.-based IRB rather than a university ethics committee in Madrid, Spain,” even though I did not ask that question from the state boards.
- I did ask whether the researchers had applied for a research exemption to conduct the study and perform intra-articular needling, in case it was not considered within the scope of PT practice.
It is unfortunate that Dunning and colleagues felt a need to misrepresent what I expressed in my email to the state boards. Frankly, I do not understand why they would not just focus on the history and background of intra-articular needling, especially since overall, their blog is quite informative and provides useful information about intra-articular dry needling.