DRY NEEDLING AND SPINAL MANIPULATIVE THERAPY VERSUS SPINAL MANIPULATIVE THERAPY ALONE IN NON-SPECIFIC CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN

COMPARISON OF DRY NEEDLING AND SPINAL MANIPULATIVE THERAPY VERSUS SPINAL MANIPULATIVE THERAPY ALONE ON PAIN AND DISABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH NON-SPECIFIC CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

IRCT

Registry ID

IRCT20200826048530N1

Enrollment

128

Registered

2023-10-01

Start date

2019-02-04

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2023-10-16

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Non-specific chronic low back pain. Low back pain

Interventions

Intervention 1: Intervention group: Spinal manipulative therapy and dry needling (DN). Participants allocated to this group will recieve both Spinal manipulative therapy and dry needling. For the spin

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to 60 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients willing to be part of the study Patients diagnosed as having chronic nonspecific low back pain Age 18 –60 years Both male and female History of non-specific LBP without referral into the lower extremity Score 4 points on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Have not received physical therapy within the last 3 months Exhibit at least 1 active TrP reproducing their symptom in quadratus lumborum , gluteus medius and paraspinal muscle

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Any serious spinal pathology (e.g. inflammatory or infectious condition of the spinemetastatic fracture, cauda-equina syndrome etc) Compromised nerve root Any history of spinal surgery Any other conditions that would affect the active participation in the treatment. Long term steroid use Any neurological condition Osteoporosis

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Pian intensity. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS-0 to 10cm) for pain intensity. increase in scores suggests increase in pain intensity and decrease suggests decrease in pain intensity.;Range of motion of lumbar spine. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Modified-modified Schöber Test to measure flexion of lumbar spine.;Disability. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Ronald Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability.	—

Measure

Time frame

Pian intensity. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS-0 to 10cm) for pain intensity. increase in scores suggests increase in pain intensity and decrease suggests decrease in pain intensity.;Range of motion of lumbar spine. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Modified-modified Schöber Test to measure flexion of lumbar spine.;Disability. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Ronald Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Lumbar muscle endurance. Timepoint: before intervent and 4, 8 weeks, 6 months after intervention. Method of measurement: Sorensen test for lumbar muscle endurance.	—

Countries

Pakistan

Contacts

Public ContactKashmala

Sindh Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

kashmala_khan84@hotmail.com+92 21 99216213

Outcome results

None listed

Source: IRCT (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026