ArticleHong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao2024
Comparison between effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and manual myofascial release on pain, range of motion and function in myofascial pain syndrome of upper trapezius - A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Hong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07767747 (Comparative Effects of the Emmett Technique and the Bowen Technique on Pain, Range of Motion, and Functional Disability in Patients With Upper Trapezius Myofascial Pain Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparative Effects of the Emmett Technique and the Bowen Technique on Pain, Range of Motion, and Functional Disability in Patients With Upper Trapezius Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and percussion massage therapy in cervical disc herniation: a randomized controlled study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Review
- Effects of Magnetic Field Therapy and Massage on Upper Trapezius Muscle Tone, Craniovertebral Angle, and Scapular Index.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a muscle pain disorder characterized by the presence of Myofascial Trigger Point (MTrP) within a taut band, local tenderness, referral of pain to a distant site, restricted range of motion, and autonomic phenomena. The upper trapezius is the muscle most often affected by MTrPs. Manual myofascial release (MFR) and Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) are techniques of soft tissue release that are used to resolve MPS. Fifty six percent of physiotherapists complain of pain in multiple areas due to the massage and manual therapy that they have to perform. Objective: The objective of this study is to find whether IASTM is better than manual MFR in treating patients with MPS in upper trapezius. Methods: This study was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial that included 31 participants, both males and females between the age groups of 18-50 years. Participants were randomly divided into two groups. Three sessions were given over a period of one week for both groups. Group A received IASTM along with conventional treatment and Group B received Manual MFR along with the conventional treatment. The outcome measures evaluated were pain, cervical range of motion, pain pressure threshold (PPT) of trigger points, and the neck disability index. Pre- and post-measurements were taken and the analysis was done. Results: Both the treatment methods significantly reduced pain, improved PPT, range of motion, and function. The effects between the groups showed that IASTM was significantly better than manual MFR to reduce pain. The improvement in PPT, range of motion and function were equal in both the groups. Conclusion: IASTM and manual MFR both are effective individually as treatment procedures for pain, PPT, range of motion, and function. Neither of the treatment options can be considered better that the other. The clinician can decide based on the availability of the instrument, training, patient's preference, and his/her comfort whether which of the two treatment methods should be used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.