[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"non-specific-low-back-pain-nslbp\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:non-specific-low-back-pain-nslbp":27},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,7,0,[8,46,70,103,128,162,185],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":22,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":28,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":34,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":35,"startDateStruct":38,"completionDateStruct":40,"leadSponsor":42,"locationsCount":45},"100644588","psoas-major-muscle-intervention-on-chronic-lumbar-pain-in-cleaning-professionals-100644588",false,"NCT07672197","Psoas Major Muscle Intervention on Chronic Lumbar Pain in Cleaning Professionals.","Influence of the Stretching Technique on the Psoas Major Muscle on Chronic Lumbar Pain in Cleaning Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Being a cleaning professional for at least 4 years\n* Report at least 1 episode of lumbar pain in the last 3 months\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Any severe spinal condition (such as spondylolisthesis, spine fracture, etc.)\n* Any severe neurological or rheumatological condition\n* Pregnancy\n* Daily use of pain medication","ALL","18 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},30,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[23],"NA","The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to determine the effect of a psoas major muscle intervention on non-specific and chronic lumbar pain in cleaning professionals. It is expected that this intervention will reduce the severity and frequency of symptoms. This study aims to evaluate the effect of psoas major stretching techniques. To collect data, participants will rate their pain intensity on a numeric pain scale at rest and during maximal lumbar flexion. Secondary variables include lumbar flexion range of motion (ROM), assessed by the Schöber test, and hip ROM, which will be measured before and after the intervention using a digital goniometer.",[26,27],"Lumbar Pain","Non-specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP)",[29,30,31,32],"manual therapy","cleaning professionals","psoas major","stretching technique","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-25",{"date":36,"type":37},"2026-06-26","ACTUAL",{"date":39,"type":20},"2026-07",{"date":41,"type":20},"2026-09",{"name":43,"class":44},"Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde do Porto","OTHER",1,{"id":47,"slug":48,"hasResults":11,"nctId":49,"briefTitle":50,"officialTitle":51,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":52,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":53,"enrollmentInfo":54,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":56,"briefSummary":57,"conditions":58,"keywords":59,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":61,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":62,"startDateStruct":64,"completionDateStruct":66,"leadSponsor":68,"locationsCount":4},"100641360","effects-of-sahrmanns-versus-mcgill-exercise-in-patients-with-non-specific-low-back-pain-100641360","NCT07659327","Effects Of Sahrmann's Versus McGill Exercise In Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain","Effects Of Sahrmann's Versus McGill Exercise On Pain, Disability, And Range Of Motion In Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Diagnosed patients of non-specific low back pain Adults between 18-35 years. Both male and female included Low back pain for minimum of three months NPRS score 3-7 will be recruited in this study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nHistory of any trauma and spinal injury History of previous lumbar surgery History of cancer, spinal infection, rheumatologic diseases, spine fracture, red flag signs.\n\nCongenital anomly (scoliosis, kyphosis) Systemic diseases affecting bones \\& joints such as rheumatoid arthritis","35 Years",{"count":55,"type":20},42,[23],"The goal of this clinical trial is to learn whether Sahrmann exercises or McGill exercises are more effective for reducing pain and improving function in adults with non-specific low back pain. It will also evaluate which exercise program is more effective in improving spinal range of motion.\n\nThe main questions it aims to answer are:\n\nDo Sahrmann exercises reduce pain more effectively than McGill exercises? Do Sahrmann exercises improve disability more effectively than McGill exercises? Do Sahrmann exercises improve lumbar range of motion more effectively than McGill exercises?\n\nResearchers will compare a Sahrmann exercise program with a McGill exercise program to determine which approach produces better outcomes in patients with non-specific low back pain.\n\nParticipants will:\n\nBe randomly assigned to either a Sahrmann exercise group or a McGill exercise group.\n\nReceive standard physical therapy treatment, including heat therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).\n\nPerform the assigned exercise program under the supervision of a physiotherapist.\n\nAttend exercise sessions 3-5 times per week during the study period. Complete assessments of pain, disability, and lumbar range of motion before and after the intervention.\n\nHave pain measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and lumbar range of motion measured using a Baseline Bubble Inclinometer.",[27],[60],"non-specific low back pain, pain management, Disability Evaluation, Exercise Therapy, Rehabilitation, sahrmann' exercise, McGill exercise","2026-06-16",{"date":63,"type":37},"2026-06-22",{"date":65,"type":20},"2026-07-30",{"date":67,"type":20},"2026-12-30",{"name":69,"class":44},"Riphah International University",{"id":71,"slug":72,"hasResults":11,"nctId":73,"briefTitle":74,"officialTitle":75,"acronym":76,"eligibilityCriteria":77,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":78,"enrollmentInfo":79,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":80,"briefSummary":81,"conditions":82,"keywords":83,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":94,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":95,"startDateStruct":97,"completionDateStruct":99,"leadSponsor":101,"locationsCount":45},"100608967","web-based-exercise-program-for-non-specific-low-back-pain-100608967","NCT07208435","Web-Based Exercise Program for Non-Specific Low Back Pain","Effectiveness of Web-Based Exercise Programs in the Management of Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial","WEBEX-LBP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18-45 years diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) for 6 weeks to \\\u003C12 months.\n* Self-reported pain intensity ≥3 on a 0-10 Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS).\n* Evidence of functional limitation (Oswestry Disability Index or Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire).\n* Access to a smartphone, tablet, or computer with internet connectivity.\n* Ability and willingness to participate in telerehabilitation programs.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Specific causes of low back pain (herniated disc with radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, fractures, infections, malignancy).\n* Neurological deficits (e.g., severe motor weakness, progressive neurological symptoms).\n* Severe psychiatric or cognitive disorders interfering with participation.\n* History of spinal surgery within the last year.\n* Severe comorbidities contraindicating exercise (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, cardiovascular disease).\n* Pregnant or planning pregnancy during the study period.\n* Active substance or alcohol abuse.\n* Participation in other structured rehabilitation or physical therapy programs within the last 3 months.","45 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},[23],"This study evaluates the effectiveness of a web application-based exercise program (delivered via Physitrack) for managing non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) compared to traditional home exercise programs. The trial focuses on whether web-based delivery can improve pain, function, quality of life, and adherence, providing evidence for digital rehabilitation as a practical alternative to conventional physiotherapy.",[27],[84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93],"Non-Specific Low Back Pain","NSLBP","Web-Based Exercise Program","Telerehabilitation","Randomized Controlled Trial","Physiotherapy","Home Exercise Program","Pain Management","Functional Improvement","Quality of Life","2026-05-16",{"date":96,"type":37},"2026-05-19",{"date":98,"type":20},"2026-05",{"date":100,"type":20},"2026-06",{"name":102,"class":44},"Medipol University",{"id":104,"slug":105,"hasResults":11,"nctId":106,"briefTitle":107,"officialTitle":108,"acronym":109,"eligibilityCriteria":110,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":111,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":113,"briefSummary":114,"conditions":115,"keywords":116,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":119,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":120,"startDateStruct":122,"completionDateStruct":124,"leadSponsor":126,"locationsCount":4},"100626314","erector-spinae-plane-block-for-acute-low-back-pain-100626314","NCT07434024","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Acute Low Back Pain","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Acute Low Back Pain: a Prospective Double-blind Randomized Multicenter Study","ESP-BACK","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult (≥ 18 years);\n* Non-specific low back pain (≤ 5 days);\n* Pain score (VAS) ≥ 5 (during mobilization);\n* Inability to walk easily (failure of the \"Get Up and Go\" test in less than 20 seconds).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Low back pain of known specific origin: spine surgery, spine trauma, discal hernia, facet joint, radicular (sciatica, cruralgia, meralgia paresthetica), muscle pain, cancer-related or rheumatological disease;\n* Referred or chronic pain;\n* Patients with opioids (acute or chronic pain and\u002For misuse);\n* Contraindication to regional anaesthesia;\n* Contraindication to ropivacaine, dexamethasone, sodium chloride, NSAID, paracetamol, tramadol;\n* Known hypersensitivity to ropivacaine, dexamethasone, other amide-type local anesthetics, or any of the excipients;\n* Addiction to drugs, alcohol or medication;\n* Patients with anticoagulants for a curative use (not preventive);\n* Patients with cancer or risk of bone metastasis or; severe osteoporosis;\n* Acute inflammatory diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis…);\n* Patient with severe hypotension or uncontrolled hypertension or; Heart Block (uncorrected second- or third-degree heart block without a pacemaker) or; severe bradycardia;\n* Patients with severe liver or renal disease or peptic ulcer disease;\n* Presence of infection or sepsis at the injection site;\n* Patients with uncontrolled bacterial, viral, or protozoan infections or; systemic fungal infections or; active untreated tuberculosis or; active ocular herpes simplex infections;\n* Patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus;\n* Patients with glaucoma or history of severe glaucoma;\n* Patients with severe psychiatric conditions;\n* Subject unable to read or\u002Fand write (inability to complete a self-administered questionnaire);\n* Unavailability for follow up during 6 months;\n* Participation in another clinical trial involving an investigational medicinal product or medical device within 4 weeks preceding the screening date;\n* Pregnancy in progress or planned during the study period or breastfeeding women (Art. L1121-5 of the French Public Health Code);\n* Women of childbearing potential (WOCBP) without a negative of highly sensitive pregnancy test before inclusion or not using a highly effective method of contraception;\n* Patients protected by law (Art. L1121-6 and L1121-8 of the French Public Health Code): Individuals deprived of their liberty by judicial or administrative decision, minors, adults under law protection or unable to express their consent or patient under guardianship or curatorship;\n* Patients not covered by a French social security scheme or not benefiting from such a scheme;\n* Absence of signed informed consent form before inclusion from the patient;\n* Patient already included in the study.",{"count":112,"type":20},300,[23],"Non-Specific low back pain (NSLB) is an important public health problem with a major economic and social impact. It is defined by the location of pain, between the lower rib margins and the lumbar vertebrae. Medical management of Non-Specific low back pain injury focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Nowadays, no strategy has shown optimal effectiveness to improve outcome substantially. The ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a well-known intermuscular compartment block. In the absence of red flag signs, ESPB can be performed for low back pain to reduce pain, decrease opiate requirements and limit emergency admissions for refractory pain. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the ESPB in patients suffering from NSLB.",[27],[117,118],"Non-Specific low back pain ;","Erector Spinae Plane Block","2026-03-13",{"date":121,"type":37},"2026-03-17",{"date":123,"type":20},"2026-03",{"date":125,"type":20},"2030-01",{"name":127,"class":44},"University Hospital, Montpellier",{"id":129,"slug":130,"hasResults":11,"nctId":131,"briefTitle":132,"officialTitle":132,"acronym":133,"eligibilityCriteria":134,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":135,"enrollmentInfo":136,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":138,"briefSummary":140,"conditions":141,"keywords":143,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":153,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":154,"startDateStruct":156,"completionDateStruct":158,"leadSponsor":160,"locationsCount":45},"100613931","phase-4-percutaneous-electrical-nerve-stimulation-as-alternative-to-nerve-blocks-in-anesthesia-pain-medicine-and-rehabilitation-of-nonspecific-chronic-pain-100613931","NCT07273006","Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation As Alternative To Nerve Blocks In Anesthesia, Pain Medicine And Rehabilitation Of Nonspecific Chronic Pain","PENSAR","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Participants with chronic LBP lasting at least three months and clinical suspicion of facet joint pain.\n* A balanced sex distribution and a wide range of body mass index (BMI) will be promoted to allow subgroup analyses and to explore potential associations between obesity and procedural complications, thus strengthening the external validity of the study. This demographic selection is justified by prevalence patterns reported in the literature and by the need to capture clinically relevant effect modifiers in real clinical environments.\n* The suspicion of facet joint pain will be based on a compatible axial clinical pattern and the absence of objective neurological deficit, considering that neither physical examination nor imaging tests provide sufficient specificity. Therefore, diagnostic confirmation will be performed functionally through ultrasound-guided medial branch diagnostic blocks, which are the most reliable tool for attributing pain to the facet joint. The dual innervation of each lumbar facet joint will be considered; thus, two adjacent levels will be blocked per joint (the medial branch at the affected level and the one immediately above).\n* Eligible patients will be those with a positive functional screening in two independent medial branch diagnostic blocks performed with anesthetics of different duration, in separate sessions, to reduce false positives.\n* The diagnosis will be confirmed in cases reporting clinically relevant pain relief within the expected pharmacological window.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Exclusion criteria will include red flags or specific etiologies such as infection, neoplasm, fracture, or cauda equina syndrome, as well as patients with progressive motor radiculopathy or another demonstrated neuropathic pain source other than facet origin.\n* Individuals who have undergone prior procedures that could compromise response interpretation such as recent radiofrequency denervation, cryoneurolysis or intra-articular corticosteroid injections within a period that could extend analgesic effects.","80 Years",{"count":137,"type":20},82,[139],"PHASE4","Chronic musculoskeletal pain of non-specific origin affects approximately 30% of the global population. Beyond its prevalence, it represents a serious health and socioeconomic problem. It is considered the leading cause of years lived with disability and is characterized by persistent functional limitation, deterioration of quality of life, and poorer mental health, with a high comorbidity of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, as well as a greater risk of suicidal ideation and behavior.\n\nFrom a socioeconomic perspective, chronic pain entails an impact of up to USD 635 billion annually just in United States (USA). In fact, spinal pain alone represents the condition with the highest direct costs (around USD 134.5 billion in USA) and additional indirect costs due to absenteeism and presenteeism, which impair productivity and work performance. These figures are expected to be substantially higher when considered at a global scale.\n\nOne of the main aggravating factors of this condition is that in up to 90% of patients experiencing pain there is no identifiable anatomopathological substrate that reliably explains the symptoms (non-specific pain). Radiological findings are extremely common in asymptomatic populations, and making diagnostic or therapeutic decisions based on such findings, promotes overdiagnosis and low-value clinical cascades. It is estimated that up to 50% of imaging requests and 60% of spinal surgeries6 are unnecessary or unjustified. For this reason, Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend prioritizing interventional diagnostic techniques based on functional criteria over the interpretation of radiological findings, as they allow for more sensitive and specific identification of nociceptive sources (with a recommendation grade I-II).\n\nIn this context, the motivation of the project is to study PENS as a non-pharmacological, safe, and transferable alternative to nerve blocks, reducing the risk of complications associated with the use of local anesthetics\u002Fcorticosteroids and large-gauge needles. According to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirming immediate analgesic responses, PENS could be a feasible alternative that maintains functional diagnostic and therapeutic value with a generally mild adverse-event profile and lower cost.",[27,142],"Facet Joint Syndrome",[144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152],"musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging","health care cost-utility","safety and adverse events","randomized clinical trial","pain neuromodulation","diagnostic nerve blocks","percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation","facet joint syndrome","non-specific low back pain","2026-01-09",{"date":155,"type":37},"2026-01-13",{"date":157,"type":20},"2026-09-01",{"date":159,"type":20},"2029-08-31",{"name":161,"class":44},"Universidad Complutense de Madrid",{"id":163,"slug":164,"hasResults":11,"nctId":165,"briefTitle":166,"officialTitle":167,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":168,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":169,"maxAge":170,"enrollmentInfo":171,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":173,"briefSummary":174,"conditions":175,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":176,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":177,"startDateStruct":179,"completionDateStruct":181,"leadSponsor":183,"locationsCount":45},"100606552","effect-of-two-different-mobilization-techniques-in-the-treatment-of-low-back-pain-100606552","NCT07177040","Effect of Two Different Mobilization Techniques in the Treatment of Low Back Pain","Effect of SNAG Versus Maitland Techniques in the Management of Non-Specific Low Back Pain","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 25 to 40 years.\n* Diagnosed with chronic NSLBP persisting for more than three months.\n* Pain intensity between 3 to 6 on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during lumbar extension in a sitting position.\n* Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score between 20% to 40%.\n* Restriction of the movement only in flexion ROM with the ability to perform at least 40° of trunk flexion.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Specific causes of low back pain (e.g., herniated disc, spinal stenosis).\n* History of spinal surgery or trauma.\n* Neurological deficits or systemic diseases affecting the musculoskeletal system.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Current participation in other physiotherapy programs.","25 Years","40 Years",{"count":172,"type":20},60,[23],"Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is extensively musculoskeletal conditions, where manual therapy techniques have been widely employed in its management, but their short term efficacy in chronic low back pain still need more investigations. Objective: This study aimed to discuss the SNAG versus Maitland techniques in the management of NSLBP. Methods: 60 patients with chronic NSLBP will share in the study. Sessions will be conducted 3 times per week for 4 weeks. The outcomes will be evaluated for pain by the numerical rating pain scale (NPRS), disability through Oswestry Disability Index, flexion range of motion by back range of motion device, postural stability by Biodex system will be assessed at baseline, immediately post-intervention, and at a four-week follow-up",[27],"2025-10-02",{"date":178,"type":37},"2025-10-07",{"date":180,"type":20},"2025-10-05",{"date":182,"type":20},"2026-01-20",{"name":184,"class":44},"Ehab Mohamed Kamel Ahmed",{"id":186,"slug":187,"hasResults":11,"nctId":188,"briefTitle":189,"officialTitle":190,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":191,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":192,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":193,"briefSummary":194,"conditions":195,"keywords":196,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":198,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":199,"startDateStruct":201,"completionDateStruct":203,"leadSponsor":205,"locationsCount":45},"100606887","mulligan-mobilization-techniques-for-non-specific-low-back-pain-100606887","NCT07181395","Mulligan Mobilization Techniques for Non-Specific Low Back Pain","Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Different Mulligan Mobilization Techniques in Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Triple-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years\n* Diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) for at least 3 months\n* Able to walk independently\n* Willing to participate and provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Specific causes of low back pain (e.g., disc herniation, spinal stenosis, tumor)\n* Presence of neurological deficits or radiculopathy\n* Hip joint pathologies limiting mobility (e.g., osteoarthritis)\n* History of lumbar surgery in the last 6 months\n* Diagnosed osteoporosis or osteopenia\n* Contraindications for Mulligan mobilization\n* Severe physical or cognitive impairments preventing participation\n* Participation in other physiotherapy or manual therapy treatments during the study period",{"count":19,"type":20},[23],"This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different Mulligan mobilization techniques in patients with non-specific low back pain. A total of 30 adults with chronic low back pain will be randomly assigned to three groups: (1) conventional physiotherapy plus hip internal rotation Mulligan mobilization, (2) conventional physiotherapy plus straight leg raise Mulligan mobilization, or (3) conventional physiotherapy only. The interventions will be applied twice a week for four weeks. The main outcomes are pain intensity (measured by Visual Analog Scale) and lumbar range of motion. Secondary outcomes include disability level (Oswestry Disability Index) and back awareness (Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire). The study will help determine whether Mulligan techniques provide additional benefits beyond conventional physiotherapy in reducing pain and improving function in people with non-specific low back pain.",[27],[197],"Mulligan Mobilization, Hip Internal Rotation, Straight Leg Raise, Physiotherapy, Manual Therapy, Low Back Pain","2025-09-12",{"date":200,"type":37},"2025-09-18",{"date":202,"type":20},"2025-09-07",{"date":204,"type":20},"2025-12-01",{"name":206,"class":44},"Gazi University"]