[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":126},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,49,78,106],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":29,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":37,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":38,"startDateStruct":41,"completionDateStruct":43,"leadSponsor":45,"locationsCount":48},"100643608","foam-roller-versus-self-performed-neurodynamic-sliding-in-people-with-hamstring-tightness-and-low-back-pain-history-100643608",false,"NCT07627581","Foam Roller Versus Self-Performed Neurodynamic Sliding in People With Hamstring Tightness and Low Back Pain History","Effects of Self-Myofascial Release With Foam Roller Versus Self-Performed Neurodynamic Sliding on Hamstring Flexibility in People With Hamstring Tightness and a History of Low Back Pain: A Randomized Pilot Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Men and women aged 16 years or older.\n* History of non-specific low back pain during the previous three months and\u002For recurrent or chronic non-specific low back pain.\n* Limited hamstring flexibility, defined as hamstring tightness with 75 degrees or less of hip flexion with knee extension during the Straight Leg Raise test.\n* No previous surgery involving the spine or lower limb.\n* No hamstring stretching exercises performed in the weeks prior to participation.\n* Ability and willingness to provide informed consent.\n* Availability to perform both self-administered physiotherapy techniques according to the study protocol.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding.\n* History of hamstring muscle or tendon injury during the previous year.\n* Lumbar or lower-limb neurological deficits.\n* Lower-limb length discrepancy.\n* Specific spinal pathology, including tumor, infection, fracture, or inflammatory disease.\n* History of lumbar disc herniation.\n* History of whiplash injury.\n* Any contraindication to physical exercise.\n* Menstrual pain at the time of assessment or intervention.\n* Scheduled surgery during the intervention or follow-up period.\n* History of cardiac disease.\n* Incomplete or incorrectly completed questionnaires or missing assessment data.\n* Refusal to complete part or all of the study intervention.\n* Development of a low back pain episode during the study intervention.","ALL","18 Years","65 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},30,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","This randomized crossover pilot clinical trial evaluated the effects of two self-administered physiotherapy techniques in people with hamstring tightness and a history of non-specific low back pain.\n\nParticipants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences. One sequence performed self-myofascial release using a foam roller first, followed by a one-month washout period, and then performed a self-administered neurodynamic sliding technique. The other sequence performed the neurodynamic sliding technique first, followed by a one-month washout period, and then performed the foam roller intervention.\n\nThe main objective of the study was to compare the effects of both interventions on hamstring flexibility. Secondary outcomes included active knee extension range of motion, dynamic balance, pressure pain threshold, hamstring and gluteus maximus strength, and low back pain intensity.",[27,28],"Low Back Pain","Hamstring Tightness",[30,31,32,33,34,35],"foam roller","Self-myofascial release","Neurodynamic sliding","Hamstring flexibility","Low back pain","Crossover trial","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-04",{"date":39,"type":40},"2026-06-08","ACTUAL",{"date":42,"type":21},"2026-06",{"date":44,"type":21},"2026-08",{"name":46,"class":47},"Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca","OTHER",1,{"id":50,"slug":51,"hasResults":11,"nctId":52,"briefTitle":53,"officialTitle":54,"acronym":55,"eligibilityCriteria":56,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":57,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":59,"briefSummary":60,"conditions":61,"keywords":64,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":72,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":73,"startDateStruct":74,"completionDateStruct":75,"leadSponsor":77,"locationsCount":48},"100640470","diaphragmatic-breathing-exercises-with-kots-currents-in-patients-with-long-covid-100640470","NCT07621588","Diaphragmatic Breathing Exercises With KOTS Currents in Patients With Long COVID","Effects of Diaphragmatic Breathing Exercises Combined With Diaphragmatic Electrostimulation Using KOTS Currents in Patients With Long COVID: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial","KOTS-LC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Men and women aged 18 to 65 years.\n* Medical diagnosis of Long COVID.\n* At least 2 months since SARS-CoV-2 infection.\n* Ability and willingness to provide informed consent.\n* Ability to participate in the assigned intervention and assessment procedures.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Presence of a pacemaker.\n* History of epilepsy.\n* Pregnancy.\n* History of acute cardiac arrest.\n* Severe respiratory distress.\n* Use of a wheelchair.\n* Blurred vision.\n* Cyanosis.\n* Refusal to perform part or all of the treatment.\n* Incomplete or incorrectly completed questionnaires.",{"count":58,"type":21},10,[24],"This study will evaluate the effects of diaphragmatic breathing exercises combined with diaphragmatic electrostimulation using KOTS currents in patients with Long COVID. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The control group will perform diaphragmatic breathing exercises, while the intervention group will perform diaphragmatic breathing exercises combined with diaphragmatic electrostimulation using KOTS currents. The intervention will last three weeks, with two sessions per week. The study will assess respiratory function, quality of life, physical function, dyspnea, fatigue, and basal oxygen saturation.",[62,63],"Long COVID Syndrome","Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome",[65,66,67,68,69,70,71],"Diaphragmatic Breathing","KOTS Currents","Russian Currents","Diaphragmatic Electrostimulation","Quality of Life","Respiratory Rehabilitation","Spirometry","2026-06-02",{"date":37,"type":40},{"date":42,"type":21},{"date":76,"type":21},"2026-07",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":79,"slug":80,"hasResults":11,"nctId":81,"briefTitle":82,"officialTitle":83,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":84,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":85,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":87,"briefSummary":88,"conditions":89,"keywords":91,"overallStatus":97,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":98,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":99,"startDateStruct":101,"completionDateStruct":103,"leadSponsor":105,"locationsCount":48},"100611995","efficacy-of-therapeutic-percutaneous-electrolysis-vs-laser-therapy-in-supraspinatus-tendinopathy-100611995","NCT07247825","Efficacy of Therapeutic Percutaneous Electrolysis vs Laser Therapy in Supraspinatus Tendinopathy.","Efficacy of Therapeutic Percutaneous Electrolysis vs Laser Therapy in Supraspinatus Tendinopathy. Randomized Clinical Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Signing of informed consent both to participate in the study and to undergo invasive physiotherapy techniques.\n* Presence of symptoms (inflammation or pain) ≥ 4 weeks.\n* Positive palpation test of the supraspinatus tendon.\n* Men and women over 18 years of age.\n* Score of 3 or higher on the shoulder pain analogue scale.\n* Adequate cognitive ability for understanding.\n* Limited range of motion.\n* Rotator cuff tendinopathy confirmed by ultrasound at the study centre, either due to tendon inflammation, presence of hypoechoic areas, calcification, fibrillar disorganisation and\u002For neovascularisation in the supraspinatus muscle.\n* Pain in the proximal lateral part of the arm that worsens with abduction.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Any related acute or chronic musculoskeletal disease that may affect the results of the study.\n* Presence of neuropathic pain such as lumbar radiculopathy, which may affect the results of the study.\n* Not receiving the treatment sessions and assessments of the study.\n* History of glenohumeral fracture and rheumatoid arthritis.\n* Rheumatic, neurological or structural polymyalgia affecting the joint.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Patients with cardiovascular disease.\n* Patients with neurological disease.\n* Local infection.\n* Tumours.\n* Belonephobia.\n* Taking anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents.\n* Infiltrative and\u002For rehabilitative treatment in the two months prior to recruitment.\n* Treatment with another intervention during the study.",{"count":86,"type":21},40,[24],"Supraspinatus tendinopathy (SE) is one of the main pathologies that cause functional alterations in the glenohumeral joint. It reduces the quality of life of the population suffering from this injury. This pathology is the most frequent cause of pain in this joint. Symptoms are aggravated by repetitive work performed at or above shoulder height and sports that involve movements above the head.\n\nSingle-blind randomised clinical trial. The participants in this study will be patients selected from the ValleSur physiotherapy clinic in Ávila from January to May 2026. These patients will be diagnosed beforehand by an orthopaedic surgeon through a complete series of orthopaedic and complementary diagnostic tests. Following the clinical examination conducted by the principal investigator to verify the presence of tendinopathy in the supraspinatus and identify the selection criteria in the selected participants. Ultrasound imaging will be used to select the area to be treated. A single-blind clinical trial with a randomised design will be conducted, in which the evaluator will be blinded to assess the short- and medium-term efficacy of treatment with ultrasound-guided electrolysis. The results will then be compared with another intervention already performed with laser therapy for the same pathology and at the same centre. - Common part of the treatment: Participants included in the study receive one intervention, with four evaluations: pre-intervention, post-intervention, 24 hours and one week after the intervention.\n\n\\- Invasive procedure: The patient is placed in a prone position with their feet outside the treatment table. Before beginning the intervention, the physiotherapist uses sterile gloves and examines the area to be treated using a linear probe ultrasound scanner, 2D study, in B mode and Doppler, to identify the target tissue safely and guaranteein B-mode and Doppler mode, to identify the target tissue safely and ensure the effectiveness of the technique. (10) Once the target area has been located, an ultrasound palpation is performed to correlate the ultrasound image with the patient's clinical condition. This image is frozen in order to measure the distance from the skin to the target tissue and select the needle, in this case 0.30 x 25 mm in length (Agupunt, Madrid, Spain) CE. (16,17) The physiotherapist then thoroughly cleans the area using sterile gauze and 2% aqueous chlorhexidine. The ultrasound probe is placed back on the target tissue, the needle inserted into the handpiece is introduced, and the contact electrode is placed in the upper area close to the needle to close the circuit. Once positioned in the area to be treated, the CE-certified electrolysis device for the percutaneous application of EPTE® galvanic current (IONCLINICS \\& DEIONIC SL, Av.\n\nAntonio Almela 29, 46250 Alcudia, Valencia, Spain), the intensity is programmed, which in this case is 360 µA, and the treatment time, 1 minute and 20 seconds, and the 'ON' button to start the technique, and the current begins to rise progressively until it reaches 360 µA. Once the intensity is reached, the time countdown begins (1 minute and 20 seconds).",[90],"Tendinopathy",[92,93,94,95,96],"electrolysis","Quality of life","pain","laser","range of motion","RECRUITING","2026-04-28",{"date":100,"type":40},"2026-05-04",{"date":102,"type":40},"2026-01-10",{"date":104,"type":21},"2026-08-31",{"name":46,"class":47},{"id":107,"slug":108,"hasResults":11,"nctId":109,"briefTitle":110,"officialTitle":111,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":112,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":113,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":114,"briefSummary":115,"conditions":116,"keywords":118,"overallStatus":97,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":98,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":120,"startDateStruct":121,"completionDateStruct":123,"leadSponsor":125,"locationsCount":48},"100610660","comparative-study-of-lokomat-exoskeleton-vs-c-mill-treadmill-for-gait-recovery-in-rehabilitation-100610660","NCT07230470","Comparative Study of LoKomat® Exoskeleton VS C-Mill® Treadmill for Gait Recovery in Rehabilitation.","Comparative Study of Working With the LoKomat® Exoskeleton VS C-Mill® Treadmill for Gait Recovery in Rehabilitation and Improvement of Quality of Life in Adult Stroke Patients. Randomised Clinical Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Diagnosis of stroke (haemorrhagic and\u002For ischaemic) by a specialist physician. .\n* Subjects who are cognitively capable and who sign the informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Severe cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination \\\u003C 24.), or impairment that prevents correct understanding of the correct understanding of the messages and explanatory orders of the treatment and its conditions.\n* Diagnosis of concomitant neurological diseases and craniocerebral trauma. cranioencephalic trauma.\n* Other diseases that interfere with the gait process (e.g. disabling arthritis or arthrosis, other neurological diseases, other neurological diseases).\n\ndisabling arthritis or osteoarthritis, other concomitant neurological diseases, etc.).\n\n\\- Contraindications of the robotic tools themselves.",{"count":86,"type":21},[24],"The use of robotic technology for the treatment of gait in neurological pathologies has provided different results in scientific evidence. In patients with some types of acquired brain damage, such as stroke, the use of Lokomat® therapy can bring improvements in aspects such as gait speed and balance, among other parameters and report greater functional recovery in subacute patients with greater deterioration. Similarly, the use of another technological element such as the C-Mill® reports improvements in various aspects of ambulation and balance in gait treatments for stroke patients. Likewise, the impact on the person's recovery is not only beneficial for gait rehabilitation, but also improves the perception of well-being, which can be positive in the process of readaptation to daily life.\n\nThe effect of both treatments for gait rehabilitation in adults with stroke and their impact on quality of life in the neurorehabilitation clinic will be studied.\n\nadults with stroke and their impact on quality of life at the Lescer neurorehabilitation clinic Lescer, Madrid (Spain). Participants will be assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12 weeks.",[117],"Stroke",[117,93,119],"Spasticity",{"date":100,"type":40},{"date":122,"type":40},"2025-12-09",{"date":124,"type":21},"2026-06-20",{"name":46,"class":47},""]