AzTrials
AzTrials

Myofascial Pain SyndromeNCT06060925

Imaging Biomarkers for Myofascial Pain

An observational study of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Healthy, run by George Mason University at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is highly prevalent in the community. It is primarily diagnosed using patient self reports and physical examination, which lack reliability, sensitivity and specificity and does not provide insights into the abnormal biological and physiological processes in soft tissues. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Myofascial Pain Syndrome, Healthy
What is being tested?
Ultrasound imaging, Bioimpedance spectroscopy and Electromyography
How many people
96 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
1 Jan 2023to 31 Aug 2025
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Our chosen pain condition is chronic neck and shoulder pain. We will recruit two groups of subjects: Group 1: Chronic myofascial pain as determined by baseline clinical examination (using Travell and Simons criteria) and Group 2: pain free controls. We will focus on two standardized anatomical locations. This will enable imaging the medial upper trapezius and the infraspinatus muscles, which are common locations for MTrPs56as well as the levator scapulae.These three muscles have quite different morphology and fasciae46.The levator is a fusiform muscle with well-defined fascia that includes the musclewhile the trapezius has thinner fasciafrom where perimysiumseptae crossthe muscle belly.

Who may be able to join

  • Age 18 and older

Who cannot join

  • Diagnosis of fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome or chronic Lyme disease confirmed by physical exam
  • Diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, neuropathy or neuriitis
  • History of head, neck, or shoulder girdle surgery
  • Atypical facial neuralgia
  • New medication or change in medication in past 6 months
  • Current throat or ear infection

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • George Mason University

    Fairfax, Virginia, 22030

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Multimodal Imaging Biomarkers for Investigating Fascia, Muscle and Vasculature in Myofascial Pain

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is highly prevalent in the community. It is primarily diagnosed using patient self reports and physical examination, which lack reliability, sensitivity and specificity and does not provide insights into the abnormal biological and physiological processes in soft tissues. While a number of treatment methods are available to patients, there are currently no criteria to determine which treatments might be best for each patient's unique myofascial pain phenotype. To improve evidence-based management of myofascial pain, there is a critical need to develop quantitative measures that advance the understanding of the physiological processes in the underlying the soft tissues across the clinical continuum of MPS. The objective of this project is to develop a quantitative biomarker informed by the current understanding of underlying tissue-level mechanisms at the level of the "myofascial unit" (muscle, nerve, fascia, vasculature, lymphatics) that are likely to be involved in MPS.

Read the detailed description

Definition of proposed composite multimodal biomarker-The investigators propose to develop a quantitative tissue-level classifier based on quantitative metrics (features) derived from ultrasound elastography, Doppler, bioimpedance spectroscopy and high-density electromyography, as an indicator of the normal biological process in myofascial tissues, and pathogenic process in active and latent phases of myofascial pain.

Overall approach and scientific rigor: In Aim 1, the investigators will develop methods to generate reproducible metrics (features) from the raw tissue-level measures and determine the minimum detectable change in these features in a pilot study. In Aim 2, the investigators will conduct a longitudinal observational study with two groups of subjects (control and myofascial pain). The investigators will develop a classification algorithm that optimally differentiates between active and latent phase of myofascial pain and normal myofascial tissue.

Study population and anatomical site. The chosen pain condition is chronic neck and shoulder pain. The investigators will recruit two groups of subjects: Group 1: Chronic myofascial pain as determined by baseline clinical examination using Travell and Simon's criteria7 and Group 2: pain free controls. The investigators will focus on two standardized anatomical locations (Figure 4). This will enable imaging the medial upper trapezius and the infraspinatus muscles, which are common locations for MTrPs55 as well as the levator scapulae. These three muscles have quite different morphology and fasciae45. The levator is a fusiform muscle with well-defined fascia that includes the muscle while the trapezius has thinner fascia from where perimysium septae cross the muscle belly. The infraspinatus has multiple fascial layers on its surface and has clear segmental linkages to the C5-6 segment56 Eligibility criteria: The investigators will recruit adults 18-65 years of age. Exclusion criteria: (1) diagnosis of fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome or chronic Lyme disease; (2) Diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy, neuropathy, or neuritis; (3) History of head, neck, cervical spine, or shoulder girdle surgery; (4) Atypical facial neuralgia; (5) New medication or change in medication in past 6 weeks; (6) Current throat or ear infection.

Masking and Matching: This is a single-blind longitudinal observational study. The team performing the data collection and analysis will not know the group allocation of the subjects and will be blinded to the results of the clinical evaluations. The two groups will be age and gender matched using a paired recruitment strategy57. The investigators will identify a pool of eligible control subjects with no history of pain and divide them into gender and age brackets (18-30; 31-50; and >50). For each Group 1 subject recruited in a bracket, the investigators will recruit a matched Group 2 subject from the pool.

Sex as a biological variable: Myofascial pain is widely prevalent in the community and affects both men and women. Trapezius myalgia is more prevalent in women58. The investigators will utilize age and gender-matched groups, and will test the classifier performance for both the pooled population as well as separately by gender to identify any gender-specific differences in the biomarker measures.

Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure will be the composite classifier based on the tissue-level quantitative biomarkers. The investigators will perform repeated data collections every month for 3 months. The clinical phenotype of the subjects (normal, latent, episodic active, and persistent active) will be determined by a comprehensive physical examination protocol12. The investigators will utilize the NIH HEAL Common Data Elements for adult chronic pain to collect self reports. To further characterize the clinical phenotype, as a secondary outcome measure, the investigators will utilize an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) application (Metricwire) on a smartphone to obtain a daily pain rating triggered at random points during the day and collect automated activity monitoring from the smartphone sensors. The investigators will also collect weekly 3-item pain intensity and interference59.

Data collection procedures Data management: This is a single site study. All study procedures will be performed at Mason. The study biostatistician (Rosenberger) will set up the appropriate masking controls and electronic case report forms (eCRFs) in the electronic data capture system (REDCap). All study data will be entered into REDCap using eCRFs. Study personnel will have appropriate role-based access controls in REDCap. Source validation will be performed using REDCap's built-in checks.

Masking: A single clinician (Gerber) will obtain each subject's consent and conduct history and the physical examination. An additional clinician (DeStefano) may be present to assist, and a research assistant will be present to take notes and enter data. The engineering team, supervised by the PI (Sikdar) and co-I Chitnis, will collect the outcome measures in a separate room and will be masked to the patient's history and results of the physical examination. A manual of operating procedures will be developed for the study.

Data analysis procedures. All data analysis will be performed by a biostatistics graduate research assistant under the supervision of the data scientist (Lee) and study biostatistician (Rosenberger).

Primary analysis: The investigators will construct and rigorously validate a multi-class classification algorithm based on functional time series and statistical learning methods. Here, the biomarker time series can be represented as combination of unique temporal patterns/signals, or basis functions. These functions include time-invariant eigenbasis functions80, smoothing splines81, wavelets82, or functional principal components83. Using functional data analysis, a composite predictor variable will be constructed that summarizes the pertinent information contained in the biomarker time series. Then, a multi-class classification method will be constructed using supervised learning approaches, such as support vector machines84, discriminant analysis85,86, neural networks87,88, regression trees89. The classifying algorithm will use the composite predictor to codify subjects into the four relevant categories (pain - episodic, pain - active, control-episodic, and control-active). K-fold cross-validation will be used to assess the classifier's accuracy based on sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and the area under the ROC curve for multi-class scenarios90,91.

Secondary analysis: Several secondary analyses will be performed including: (1) Determine normative values of biomarkers in control group (Group 2); (2) Evaluate convergent validity of primary and secondary biomarkers. Since the underlying ground truth cannot be measured directly, the primary and secondary biomarkers will be utilized to evaluate convergent validity; (3) Correlation with corresponding clinical measure (range of motion, pressure pain threshold.

Being tested
Ultrasound imaging, Bioimpedance spectroscopy, Electromyography, Physical examination
Keywords
ultrasound imaging, bioimpedance spectroscopy, electromyography, fascia, blood flow
Medical subject headings
Myofascial Pain Syndromes

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Ultrasound imagingDiagnostic test

    B-mode, color Doppler, shear wave elastography

  • Bioimpedance spectroscopyDiagnostic test

    Multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy

  • ElectromyographyDiagnostic test

    High density electromyography

  • Physical examinationDiagnostic test

    Comprehensive musculoskeletal physical examination, including range of motion, and quantitative sensory testing

Study groups in NCT06060925
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Active myofascial pain syndromeSubjects that experience spontaneous pain
Receives: Diagnostic Test: Ultrasound imaging; Diagnostic Test: Bioimpedance spectroscopy; Diagnostic Test: Electromyography; Diagnostic Test: Physical examination
Latent myofascial pain syndromeSubjects that elicit pain only when palpated and disturbed.
Receives: Diagnostic Test: Ultrasound imaging; Diagnostic Test: Bioimpedance spectroscopy; Diagnostic Test: Electromyography; Diagnostic Test: Physical examination
Subjects without painNo symptoms of chronic pain.
Receives: Diagnostic Test: Ultrasound imaging; Diagnostic Test: Bioimpedance spectroscopy; Diagnostic Test: Electromyography; Diagnostic Test: Physical examination

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Ultrasound shear wave elastography

    Shear wave elastography utilizes the radiation force of ultrasound to induce shear waves in tissue and measure the propagation speed. It provides information about the mechanical properties of tissue. We will extract the shear anisotropy ratio as the outcome measure.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  2. Ultrasound Doppler

    Ultrasound Doppler estimates the flow velocity in blood vessels. We will extract end-diastolic velocity as the outcome measure.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  3. Bioimpedance spectroscopy

    Bioimpedance spectroscopy involves sending a small current into tissue at different frequencies and estimating the resistance and reactance. It can be used to measure fluid content in the extracellular space.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  4. High density electromyography

    High density electromyography involves the placement of a 64-channel electrode array on the skin surface and measuring the electrical activity of muscles. It can be used to measure motor unit excitability. We will extract the Force/EMG ratio as the outcome measure.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

Secondary outcomes (5)
  1. NIH HEAL Common data elements for adult chronic pain

    The physical examination will include the NIH HEAL Initiative recommended core data elements for adult chronic pain: • Pain intensity (PEG) • Pain interference (PEG) • Physical functioning/quality of life (PROMIS Physical Functioning Short Form 6b • Sleep (PROMIS Sleep Disturbance 6a + Sleep Duration Question) • Pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale - Short Form 6) • Depression (PHQ-2) • Anxiety (GAD-2) • Global satisfaction with treatment (PGIC) • Substance use screener (TAPS 1)

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  2. Windup ratio

    We will quantify the degree of windup (temporal summation) by measuring the amplification of pain to a train of nociceptive stimuli (a logarithmically scaled set of weighted pinpricks) applied over dermatomes that are segmentally linked to the target trapezius and infraspinatus muscles. Subjects will provide a numeric pain rating score (NPRS, 11-point scale) after each stimulus. The windup ratio (WUR) will be calculated as the ratio of the mean NPRS to baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  3. Pressure pain threshold

    The pressure pain threshold will be determined by an algometer with a 1cm2 probe area, with a series of three ascending stimulus intensities, each applied as a slowly increasing ramp of 50 kPa/s.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  4. Cervical and shoulder range of motion

    We will quantify the asymmetry in range of motion (flexion/extension; side bending;rotation; abduction/adduction)using a marker less motion capture system.

    Measured: Baseline, month 3

  5. Ecological Momentary Assessment

    We will utilize the MetricWire app to ask subjects to record their pain and activity rating during the day and during the evening every day for 3 months

    Measured: Month 1-3

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted29 Sep 2023
  2. Study start1 Jan 2023
  3. Primary completion31 Aug 2025
  4. Study completion31 Aug 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
96 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06060925
Sponsor's protocol ID
1933416
Status last verified
Jan 2026
First submitted
5 Jul 2023
Last updated
2 Feb 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Stecco A, Meneghini A, Stern R, Stecco C, Imamura M. Ultrasonography in myofascial neck pain: randomized clinical trial for diagnosis and follow-up. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014 Apr;36(3):243-53. doi: 10.1007/s00276-013-1185-2. Epub 2013 Aug 23.

    PubMed 23975091
  • Skootsky SA, Jaeger B, Oye RK. Prevalence of myofascial pain in general internal medicine practice. West J Med. 1989 Aug;151(2):157-60.

    PubMed 2788962
  • Skovron ML. Epidemiology of low back pain. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1992 Oct;6(3):559-73. doi: 10.1016/s0950-3579(05)80127-x.

    PubMed 1477891
  • Fleckenstein J, Zaps D, Ruger LJ, Lehmeyer L, Freiberg F, Lang PM, Irnich D. Discrepancy between prevalence and perceived effectiveness of treatment methods in myofascial pain syndrome: results of a cross-sectional, nationwide survey. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Feb 11;11:32. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-32.

    PubMed 20149248
  • Tough EA, White AR, Richards S, Campbell J. Variability of criteria used to diagnose myofascial trigger point pain syndrome--evidence from a review of the literature. Clin J Pain. 2007 Mar-Apr;23(3):278-86. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31802fda7c.

    PubMed 17314589
  • Shah JP, Thaker N, Heimur J, Aredo JV, Sikdar S, Gerber L. Myofascial Trigger Points Then and Now: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. PM R. 2015 Jul;7(7):746-761. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.01.024. Epub 2015 Feb 24.

    PubMed 25724849
  • Luedtke K, Allers A, Schulte LH, May A. Efficacy of interventions used by physiotherapists for patients with headache and migraine-systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia. 2016 Apr;36(5):474-92. doi: 10.1177/0333102415597889. Epub 2015 Jul 30.

    PubMed 26229071
  • Guzman-Pavon MJ, Cavero-Redondo I, Martinez-Vizcaino V, Torres-Costoso AI, Reina-Gutierrez S, Alvarez-Bueno C. Effect of Manual Therapy Interventions on Range of Motion Among Individuals with Myofascial Trigger Points: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain Med. 2022 Jan 3;23(1):137-143. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab224.

    PubMed 34289061
  • Tough EA, White AR, Cummings TM, Richards SH, Campbell JL. Acupuncture and dry needling in the management of myofascial trigger point pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Pain. 2009 Jan;13(1):3-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.02.006. Epub 2008 Apr 18.

    PubMed 18395479
  • Duarte FCK, West DWD, Linde LD, Hassan S, Kumbhare DA. Re-Examining Myofascial Pain Syndrome: Toward Biomarker Development and Mechanism-Based Diagnostic Criteria. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2021 Jul 8;23(8):69. doi: 10.1007/s11926-021-01024-8.

    PubMed 34236529
  • Gerber LH, Sikdar S, Armstrong K, Diao G, Heimur J, Kopecky J, Turo D, Otto P, Gebreab T, Shah J. A systematic comparison between subjects with no pain and pain associated with active myofascial trigger points. PM R. 2013 Nov;5(11):931-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.06.006. Epub 2013 Jun 28.

    PubMed 23810811
  • Rathbone ATL, Grosman-Rimon L, Kumbhare DA. Interrater Agreement of Manual Palpation for Identification of Myofascial Trigger Points: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin J Pain. 2017 Aug;33(8):715-729. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000459.

    PubMed 28098584
  • Mayoral Del Moral O, Torres Lacomba M, Russell IJ, Sanchez Mendez O, Sanchez Sanchez B. Validity and Reliability of Clinical Examination in the Diagnosis of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Myofascial Trigger Points in Upper Quarter Muscles. Pain Med. 2018 Oct 1;19(10):2039-2050. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnx315.

    PubMed 29253210
  • Lucas N, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Moran R, Bogduk N. Reliability of physical examination for diagnosis of myofascial trigger points: a systematic review of the literature. Clin J Pain. 2009 Jan;25(1):80-9. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31817e13b6.

    PubMed 19158550
  • Akamatsu FE, Ayres BR, Saleh SO, Hojaij F, Andrade M, Hsing WT, Jacomo AL. Trigger points: an anatomical substratum. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:623287. doi: 10.1155/2015/623287. Epub 2015 Feb 24.

    PubMed 25811029

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Healthy, run by George Mason University at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Feb 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Ultrasound shear wave elastography (time frame: Baseline, month 3). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06060925, which also lists 104 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Feb 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in