Trial reportScientific reports2026
Manual massage versus foam rolling within the NASM corrective framework: a trial for upper crossed syndrome rehabilitation in university students.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Upper Crossed Syndrome (UCS) is a prevalent musculoskeletal dysfunction among sedentary young adults, marked by specific patterns of postural misalignment and muscular imbalance. Despite growing reliance on the National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM) corrective exercise model in conservative management of UCS, a critical gap remains regarding the comparative effectiveness of different myofascial release (MFR) techniques in the foundational "Inhibit" phase. While foam rolling is widely employed for self-MFR, its ability to match the therapeutic depth of manual massage, particularly in accessing deep anterior musculature has yet to be empirically examined in controlled corrective programs. This quasi-experimental, two-arm parallel-group trial evaluated the differential impact of manual massage versus foam rolling within a 12-week NASM-based corrective exercise protocol among 30 male university students (aged 18-25) with diagnosed UCS. Participants were randomized into a Manual Massage Group (MMG) or a Foam Rolling Group (FRG), both performing identical Lengthen-Activate-Integrate phases. Primary outcome variables included postural parameters consisting of Forward Head Angle (FHA), Thoracic Kyphosis Angle (TKA), Rounded Shoulder Angle (RSA), pain intensity, shoulder internal and external range of motion (ROM), upper extremity function, and health-related quality of life. A 2 × 2 mixed-design ANOVA was conducted to evaluate interaction and main effects (p < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements over time (p < 0.001) across all outcome measures. However, the MMG showed significantly greater improvements in RSA (p = 0.031), pain reduction (p = 0.003), shoulder external and internal ROM (p = 0.001 and p = 0.016), and SF-36 physical and mental component scores (p = 0.001). No significant group-by-time interactions were observed for FHA, TKA, or upper extremity function scores. In the present study, integrating therapist-delivered manual massage was associated with greater improvements in reducing anterior postural deviations, alleviating pain, and enhancing functional mobility and quality of life in UCS populations. These findings support the targeted use of manual MFR in clinical and educational settings where deeper fascial release is warranted. Further research is recommended in diverse populations and long-term follow-ups.
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.