ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2025
The Effect of Dry Needling Compared to Lumbar Spine Mobilization on Functional Disability in Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05214456 (To Compare the Effect of Dry Needling Versus Lumbar Spine Mobilization on Symptoms in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
To Compare the Effect of Dry Needling Versus Lumbar Spine Mobilization on Symptoms in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safety Considerations When Dry Needling the Multifidi in the Thoracolumbar Region: A Cadaveric Study.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a socioeconomic burden worldwide and a major contributor to healthcare costs. Mobilization and dry needling (DN) are well-known treatments for LBP, and both of them, as a part of treatment, can relieve LBP. Due to the importance of choosing interventions with greater effects on patients' recovery, in this study we intend to compare DN and lumbar spine mobilization, as complementary therapies in combination with routine physiotherapy in the treatment of patients with chronic nonspecific LBP (CNLBP). Materials and Methods: The study is a two-arm randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial comparing DN to lumbar spine mobilization in individuals (n = 56; 18-45 years of age) with CNLBP. The experimental group will receive DN plus sham mobilization, and the control group will receive Maitland mobilization plus sham DN (eight treatment sessions in 4 weeks). The primary outcome is functional disability, and the secondary outcomes are pain, lumbar multifidus (LM) and quadratus lumborum (QL) function, lumbar range of motion (ROM), pain pressure threshold (PPT). Results: The results of this protocol study provide information on the comparison between the effects of two complementary therapies, DN and mobilization, in people with chronic nonspecific LBP. Conclusion: In this study, we intend to solve the methodological problems of the previous study in this field. The results of this study allow the therapist to choose an intervention that may have more therapeutic effects in combination with routine physiotherapy in the treatment of CNLBP. Trial Registration: 1) ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05214456) and 2) IRCT.ir (IRCT20210706051802N1).
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.