Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07756021

Active Release Versus Positional Release Technique

Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain is the pain with tension, soreness or stiffness of lower back muscles lasting from 3 months or longer due to off unidentifiable cause. Low back pain (LBP), one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders seen in the general population and has effect on every age group. The objective of the study is to compare effects of positional and active release technique on pain and flexibility among chronic non-specific low back pain patients. This study was a Randomized Clinical trial and was conducted at Arif Memorial teaching hospital. A sample size of Total 30 patients was taken in this study using a consecutive sampling technique. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. Group A was treated with positional release therapy (PRT) and Group B was treated with active release therapy (ART). Then the evaluation was done on day one as pre-treatment values and post treatment values were assessed after receiving the treatment session of 6 days for 2 consecutive weeks. The collected data was analyzed on SPSS 25. By using the Shapiro-wilk test found that the data was normally distributed with a p-value>0.05. By using paired t-test it has been that both techniques show significant results are effective for treating chronic non-specific low back pain. Using independent t-test with p-value<0.05 it has been found that Positional Release Technique being superior to Active Release Technique with p-value<0.05 by bringing the reduced flexibility to near normal and pain to the lowest level. The results suggest that both Active Release Technique and Positional Release Technique are effective in reducing the pain and improving the flexibility of the muscles in patients with Chronic non-specific low back pain. But Positional Release Technique has shown significant reduction in pain and increasing the flexibility of the muscles thus considered to be more effective than Active Release Technique.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

Age range

20 year–40 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Arif Memorial Teaching Hospital

Lahore, 54600, Pakistan

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients with Low Back Pain (for more than 3 months) with Mild and Moderate Intensity, Tenderness over Low Back, Buttocks and Hip Joint

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients with Inflammatory Conditions (RA, Ankylosing Spondylosis)
  • Patients with previous history of surgery around Hip and Knee
  • Patients with Peripheral Vascular Disease

Treatment and study plan

Positional release therapy

Other

Positional Release Therapy: For Hamstring, Piriformis, Gastrocnemius and Iliopsoas

Active Release Therapy

Other

Active Release Therapy: For Hamstring, Piriformis, Gastrocnemius and Iliopsoas

Baseline treatment

Other

Hot pack

Primary outcomes

  1. Numerical Pain Rating Scale

    Time frame: Pre and post 2 weeks

    Pain intensity was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), a self-reported measure ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 represents "no pain" and 10 represents "the worst pain imaginable." Higher scores indicate greater pain intensity and therefore a worse outcome.

  2. Active Knee Extension Test

    Time frame: Pre and Post 2 weeks

    Hamstring flexibility was assessed using the Active Knee Extension Test (AKET). Participants were positioned supine with the hip flexed to 90°, and active knee extension range of motion was measured in degrees (°) using a universal goniometer. The measurement was referenced from 0° (full knee extension). Higher knee extension values indicate a greater range of knee extension and therefore greater hamstring flexibility and a better outcome. Conversely, lower values indicate greater limitation in knee extension and reduced hamstring flexibility.

  3. Flexion, Adduction, and Internal Rotation (FAIR) Test

    Time frame: Pre and 2 weeks post intervention

    Piriformis flexibility was assessed using the Flexion, Adduction, and Internal Rotation (FAIR) Test. Hip internal rotation range of motion was measured in degrees (°) using a universal goniometer. The measurement was recorded from 0° (neutral position), with higher values indicating greater hip internal rotation range of motion and therefore greater flexibility. Thus, higher scores indicate a better outcome, reflecting greater hip mobility/flexibility.

  4. Thomas Test

    Time frame: Pre and Post 2 weeks intervention

    Hip flexor flexibility was assessed using the Thomas Test, with hip extension range of motion measured in degrees (°) using a universal goniometer. The neutral hip position was defined as 0°. Positive values indicate hip extension beyond the neutral position, whereas negative values indicate a hip flexion position and greater hip flexor tightness. Higher hip extension values indicate greater hip flexor flexibility and therefore a better outcome.

  5. Ankle Dorsiflexion Test

    Time frame: Pre and 2 week Post intervention

    It was assessed using a universal goniometer and recorded in degrees (°). The measurement ranges from 0° to 20°, with 0° representing the neutral ankle position and higher values indicating greater ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Therefore, higher scores represent a better outcome, reflecting greater ankle mobility.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Rashid Latif Medical College

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Comparative Effects of Active Release and Positional Release Technique on Pain and Flexibility in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2025
Study completion
2026
First posted
Aug 10, 2026
Registry last updated
Aug 13, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.