Trial reportPain research & management2026
Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction: A Pilot Randomized Comparative Study.
Trial report in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are 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.
Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique For Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction
Comparative Effects of Active Release and Positional Release Technique on Pain and Flexibility in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveThis study, being a pilot research, explored the comparative short-term results, as well as the feasibility, of using positional release technique (PRT) and muscle energy technique (MET) in nonspecific low back pain sufferers who also exhibited a presumption of a restriction in the facet joint. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor the purposes of the present pilot randomized comparative study, 36 patients between the ages of 25 and 50 years, all presented by an orthopedic surgeon with the diagnosis of NSLBP, were selected. These patients were randomly assigned equally to two groups using a computer-generated randomization list. Group A patients were subjected to PRT, while Group B patients were subjected to MET. Before commencing each treatment, a 15-min hot pack was administered universally. Pain intensity was also measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS), while functional measures were determined using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Three treatments per week over four weeks were administered.
resultsBoth interventions were found to be significant in reducing experimental pain from the beginning to the end of the study. After the PRT intervention, the VAS scores showed an average decrease of 1.5 points from 8.6 to 7.1. In the same manner, the VAS scores showed an average decrease of 5.66 points from 9.0 to 3.3 after the MET intervention was conducted. Concerning the RMQ scores in the same manner as the VAS of both PRT and MET intervention variables in the study, the PRT group experienced an average decrease of 1.05 in the RMQ scores from 9.3 to 8.2. After the MET intervention in the study was conducted in the same manner as the PRT intervention, the RMQ scores showed an average decrease of 9.05 points from 11 to 2.5.
conclusionBased on this pilot RCT, the results indicate that the short-term outcomes of patients with NSLBP who also have facet joint restrictions were more significantly improved through the use of the MET technique in comparison with PRT. Further research is necessary to confirm the potential of the MET technique to reduce pain associated with patients with NSLBP who have facet joint restrictions.
trial registrationClinicalTrails.gov.identifier: NCT07165249.
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.