Comparison of Myofascial Release Technique and Pilates Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Summary
Randomized controlled trial NCT07551323 compares Myofascial Release Technique (MRT) plus Clinical Pilates against Clinical Pilates alone in adults aged 18-45 with chronic non-specific low back pain. Participants with CNSLBP lasting at least 3 months are randomly assigned to receive MRT + Clinical Pilates or Clinical Pilates only for 6 weeks at 2 sessions per week. The primary outcomes are pain intensity measured by VAS and ultrasonographic thickness of the multifidus and thoracolumbar fascia; secondary outcomes include disability (Oswestry Disability Index), lumbar mobility, and balance.
“Participants (18-45 years) will be randomly assigned to: MRT + Clinical Pilates Clinical Pilates only for 6 weeks (2 sessions/week).”
About this source
ClinicalTrials.gov is the NIH-run registry of every clinical trial conducted in the United States, plus most international trials sponsored by US-based companies or institutions. By federal law, sponsors must register Phase 2 through Phase 4 studies before enrolling patients and post results within a year of completion. This feed tracks every new trial registration and study update, around 700 a month: drug interventions, device studies, behavioral protocols, observational research. Watch this if you scout drug candidates moving into mid or late-stage development, monitor competitor pipelines, or follow rare disease research where new trials signal patient hope. GovPing parses sponsor, phase, intervention, and target indication on each entry.
What changed
This study registration documents a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate whether adding Myofascial Release Technique to Clinical Pilates produces greater improvements in pain, functional disability, and soft tissue mobility compared to Pilates alone for chronic non-specific low back pain. The trial will enroll adults aged 18-45 meeting CNSLBP criteria of at least 3 months duration, excluding those with prior spinal surgery, rheumatic disease, or pregnancy.
Healthcare providers and clinical investigators conducting musculoskeletal pain research should note this comparative effectiveness study's design features, including the sham MRT control group and the specific outcome measures (VAS pain scale, ultrasonographic fascial thickness, and ODI disability scores). The study protocol may inform future clinical practice guidelines for non-pharmacological low back pain interventions.
Archived snapshot
Apr 25, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Myofascial Release Technique and Pilates Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
N/A NCT07551323 Kind: NA Apr 24, 2026
Abstract
Objective:
To evaluate the effectiveness of adding Myofascial Release Technique (MRT) to Clinical Pilates in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP).
Hypothesis:
MRT combined with Pilates will lead to greater improvements in pain, functional disability, and soft tissue mobility compared to Pilates alone.
Design & Intervention:
Randomized controlled trial. Participants (18-45 years) will be randomly assigned to:
MRT + Clinical Pilates Clinical Pilates only for 6 weeks (2 sessions/week).
Outcomes:
Primary: Pain (VAS), ultrasonographic thickness (multifidus & thoracolumbar fascia) Secondary: Disability (ODI), lumbar mobility, balance
Eligibility:
Adults with CNSLBP ≥3 months; excluding spinal surgery, rheumatic disease, and pregnancy.
Conditions: Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain
Interventions: Myofascial Release Technique (MRT), Sham Myofascial Release Technique, Clinical Pilates Exercise
Related changes
Get daily alerts for ClinicalTrials.gov Studies
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NIH.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when ClinicalTrials.gov Studies publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.