Non Specific Low Back PainLBPNCT07165249
PRT vs MET in Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Restriction
A study testing Positional release technique (PRT) and Muscle energy technique in people with Non Specific Low Back Pain and Muscle Energy Technique, run by Palestine Ahliya University at 1 site in Palestinian Territories.
Trial summary
Objective:The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 25 to 50 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Non Specific Low Back Pain, Muscle Energy Technique
- What is being tested?
- Positional release technique (PRT) and Muscle energy technique
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 36 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePalestinian Territories
- Study dates
- 2 Sep 2023to 20 Jul 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 25 to 50 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Participants in the age category of 25 to 50 years old.
- both male and female, with a diagnosis of low back pain (LBP), with or without referred leg pain.
- chronic LBP lasting more than three months.
Who cannot join
- Osteoporosis.
- bone disease.
- Spondylolisthesis.
- History of vertebral fracture.
- History of spinal surgery.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Palestinian Territories1 site
Palestine Ahliya University
Bethlehem, 3600700
About this study
Official title: Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique For Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction
Objective:The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients between the ages of 25 and 50, all referred by an orthopedic surgeon for treatment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups (n=18 per group) using a computer-generated randomization sequence. However, details regarding allocation concealment and blinding of participants or assessors were not specified, which may influence the risk of bias. Group A received Positional Release Technique (PRT), while Group B received Muscle Energy Technique (MET). Prior to each treatment session, both groups received a standardized 15-minute hot pack application as a co-intervention to promote muscle relaxation and ensure consistency across interventions. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and functional outcomes were measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ). Participants in both groups attended three physiotherapy sessions per week over a four-week treatment period.
Read the detailed description
- Study Identification Official Title: Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique for Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction Brief Title: PRT vs MET in Non-Specific Low Back Pain Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial) Phase: Not Applicable
- Study Description Brief Summary: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain with suspected facet joint dysfunction. Thirty-six patients were randomized into two groups and received treatment for 4 weeks, 3 sessions per week. Pain intensity (VAS) and functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire) were assessed pre- and post-intervention.
- Study Design Allocation: Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: None (Open Label) Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Conditions \& Interventions Condition: Non-Specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP) Interventions: Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention.
- Outcome Measures Primary Outcome Measures: Pain intensity (VAS) - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks.
- Eligibility Ages Eligible for Study: 25-50 years Sexes Eligible for Study: All Inclusion Criteria: Chronic NSLBP >3 months, suspected facet joint dysfunction. Exclusion Criteria: History of spinal surgery, vertebral fracture, osteoporosis, inflammatory/metabolic bone disease, spondylolisthesis.
- Enrollment Enrollment: 36 participants (actual)
- Locations
Maqassed Hospital, East Jerusalem, Palestine
- Being tested
- Positional release technique (PRT), Muscle energy technique
- Keywords
- Muscle energy, PRT, Non specific low back pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Positional release technique (PRT)Behavioural
Group A (PRT): Patients lay prone for the application of the hot pack. PRT was then applied to the erector spinae muscles. The therapist identified tender points and passively positioned the patient into a position of comfort, typically involving lateral trunk flexion toward the symptomatic side. Each session involved three 90-second holds per tender point. PRT procedures followed standardized positioning principles as described in previous literature.
Muscle energy techniqueBehavioural
Group B (MET): Following the hot pack application, patients were assessed for segmental dysfunction via palpation of lumbar transverse processes in prone position. MET was applied using isometric contractions aimed at correcting lumbar rotational or side-bending dysfunctions. Each contraction was held for 7-10 seconds, followed by a passive stretch. The technique was repeated for 3-5 cycles per session.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| arm 1- Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique | Experimental | 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. Receives: Behavioral: Positional release technique (PRT) |
| arm2- Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique | Experimental | 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. Receives: Behavioral: Muscle energy technique |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
VAS - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks.
A popular instrument for measuring pain is the visual analogue scale (VAS). Typically, it's a 10-cm line with the words "worst pain imaginable" at one end and "no pain" at the other. In order to quantify their level of pain, patients mark the line, and the distance from "no pain" serves as a proxy for pain
Measured: 4 weeks
RMQ
It asks about 24 different activities and functions that could be impacted by back pain. Patients indicate if they now find it difficult to be active owing to back discomfort by answering "yes" or "no" to each topic. The total number of "yes" responses is added up to determine the score; a higher score denotes a larger disability
Measured: 4 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Sep 2025
- Study start2 Sep 2023
- Primary completion15 May 2024
- Study completion20 Jul 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Non Specific Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 36 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Palestine Ahliya University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Azzam Alarab, Palestine Ahliya University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07165249
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PalestineAhliyaU
- Acronym
- LBP
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 25 Aug 2025
- Last updated
- 10 Sep 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No individual participant data (IPD) will be shared with other researchers, as there are no plans for data sharing.
Publications
Alarab A, Daoud R, Hegazy MM. Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction: A Pilot Randomized Comparative Study. Pain Res Manag. 2026;2026(1):e9964889. doi: 10.1155/prm/9964889.
PubMed 41873799
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Sep 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique For Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07165249
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- LBP / PalestineAhliyaU
- Keywords
- Muscle energy, PRT, Non specific low back pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 36 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Palestine Ahliya UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 2 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 May 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Jul 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Objective:The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).
Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients between the ages of 25 and 50, all referred by an orthopedic surgeon for treatment of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups (n=18 per group) using a computer-generated randomization sequence. However, details regarding allocation concealment and blinding of participants or assessors were not specified, which may influence the risk of bias. Group A received Positional Release Technique (PRT), while Group B received Muscle Energy Technique (MET). Prior to each treatment session, both groups received a standardized 15-minute hot pack application as a co-intervention to promote muscle relaxation and ensure consistency across interventions. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and functional outcomes were measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ). Participants in both groups attended three physiotherapy sessions per week over a four-week treatment period.
Detailed description
- Study Identification Official Title: Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique for Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction Brief Title: PRT vs MET in Non-Specific Low Back Pain Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial) Phase: Not Applicable
- Study Description Brief Summary: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Positional Release Technique (PRT) and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in reducing pain and improving outcomes for patients suffering from non-specific low back pain with suspected facet joint dysfunction. Thirty-six patients were randomized into two groups and received treatment for 4 weeks, 3 sessions per week. Pain intensity (VAS) and functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire) were assessed pre- and post-intervention.
- Study Design Allocation: Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: None (Open Label) Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Conditions \& Interventions Condition: Non-Specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP) Interventions: Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention.
- Outcome Measures Primary Outcome Measures: Pain intensity (VAS) - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks.
- Eligibility Ages Eligible for Study: 25-50 years Sexes Eligible for Study: All Inclusion Criteria: Chronic NSLBP >3 months, suspected facet joint dysfunction. Exclusion Criteria: History of spinal surgery, vertebral fracture, osteoporosis, inflammatory/metabolic bone disease, spondylolisthesis.
- Enrollment Enrollment: 36 participants (actual)
- Locations
Maqassed Hospital, East Jerusalem, Palestine
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique - 3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| arm 1- Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique | Experimental | Behavioral: Positional release technique (PRT)3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. |
| arm2- Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique | Experimental | Behavioral: Muscle energy technique3 sessions/week for 4 weeks with hot pack co-intervention. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 25 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Participants in the age category of 25 to 50 years old.
- both male and female, with a diagnosis of low back pain (LBP), with or without referred leg pain.
- chronic LBP lasting more than three months.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Osteoporosis.
- bone disease.
- Spondylolisthesis.
- History of vertebral fracture.
- History of spinal surgery.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Positional release technique (PRT)Group A (PRT): Patients lay prone for the application of the hot pack. PRT was then applied to the erector spinae muscles. The therapist identified tender points and passively positioned the patient into a position of comfort, typically involving lateral trunk flexion toward the symptomatic side. Each session involved three 90-second holds per tender point. PRT procedures followed standardized positioning principles as described in previous literature. | Behavioural | arm 1- Group A (PRT): Positional Release Technique |
| Muscle energy techniqueGroup B (MET): Following the hot pack application, patients were assessed for segmental dysfunction via palpation of lumbar transverse processes in prone position. MET was applied using isometric contractions aimed at correcting lumbar rotational or side-bending dysfunctions. Each contraction was held for 7-10 seconds, followed by a passive stretch. The technique was repeated for 3-5 cycles per session. | Behavioural | arm2- Group B (MET): Muscle Energy Technique |
Primary outcome
VAS - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks.
Time frame: 4 weeks
A popular instrument for measuring pain is the visual analogue scale (VAS). Typically, it's a 10-cm line with the words "worst pain imaginable" at one end and "no pain" at the other. In order to quantify their level of pain, patients mark the line, and the distance from "no pain" serves as a proxy for pain
RMQ
Time frame: 4 weeks
It asks about 24 different activities and functions that could be impacted by back pain. Patients indicate if they now find it difficult to be active owing to back discomfort by answering "yes" or "no" to each topic. The total number of "yes" responses is added up to determine the score; a higher score denotes a larger disability
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Sep 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41873799Alarab A, Daoud R, Hegazy MM. Positional Release Technique Versus Muscle Energy Technique for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain With Facet Joint Restriction: A Pilot Randomized Comparative Study. Pain Res Manag. 2026;2026(1):e9964889. doi: 10.1155/prm/9964889.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No individual participant data (IPD) will be shared with other researchers, as there are no plans for data sharing.
Related trials for Non Specific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Hybrid mHealth for Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), Non-specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP)
Not yet recruiting
McGill Stabilization Exercises Versus Pilates for Chronic Low Back Pain
Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Dead Bug Exercises With and Without Diaphragmatic Breathing in Patients With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain
Recruiting
The Intervention Effect of Exercise on Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Injuries
Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain, Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Injury
Not yet recruiting
Therapeutic Exercise and Education for Low Back Pain
Low Back Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Positional release technique (PRT) and Muscle energy technique in people with Non Specific Low Back Pain and Muscle Energy Technique, run by Palestine Ahliya University at 1 site in Palestinian Territories.
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 3 inclusion and 5 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 10 Sep 2025. 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 Palestinian Territories. 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?
VAS - Baseline and after 4 weeks. Functional disability (Roland-Morris Questionnaire, RMQ) - Baseline and after 4 weeks. (time frame: 4 weeks). The study lists 2 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 NCT07165249, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 10 Sep 2025.