Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)NCT07709156
Conventional, High-Intensity Laser, and Magnetic Field Therapies in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
An observational study of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), run by KTO Karatay University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This retrospective study aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional physical therapy, high-intensity laser therapy (HILT), and pulsed magnetic field therapy (PMFT) in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)
- What is being tested?
- Conventional Physical Therapy, High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) and Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT)
- How many people
- 48 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 20 Jan 2020to 20 Oct 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 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population included adult patients with mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome who completed conservative treatment and had complete pre- and post-treatment clinical assessment records. Participants were classified according to the treatment received: conventional physical therapy, conventional physical therapy plus HILT, or conventional physical therapy plus PMFT.
Who may be able to join
- Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)
- Mild-to-moderate CTS not requiring surgical intervention
- Positive Tinel's sign
- Received treatment at the participating center(s) within the past five years
- Complete pre-treatment and post-treatment clinical assessment records
- Completion of the prescribed treatment protocol
Who cannot join
- Previous carpal tunnel surgery or indication for surgical intervention Incomplete medical records
- Failure to complete the treatment protocol
- Presence of concomitant upper extremity disorders that could affect study outcomes
- Presence of neurological, orthopedic, or systemic conditions that could influence the clinical assessments
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Comparative Effectiveness of Conventional, High-Intensity Laser, and Magnetic Field Therapies in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Retrospective Study
This retrospective study aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional physical therapy, high-intensity laser therapy (HILT), and pulsed magnetic field therapy (PMFT) in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The study evaluates changes in pain, symptom severity, functional status, hand grip strength, and electrophysiological findings following treatment. Researchers will compare the outcomes of the three treatment approaches to determine whether HILT or PMFT provides additional clinical benefits beyond conventional therapy. The findings may help clinicians select the most appropriate conservative treatment strategy for patients with CTS.
Read the detailed description
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral entrapment neuropathy and is characterized by pain, numbness, tingling, weakness, and functional limitations resulting from compression of the median nerve at the wrist. Conservative treatment is recommended for patients with mild-to-moderate CTS and commonly includes physical therapy modalities. Although conventional physiotherapy remains a standard treatment approach, newer modalities such as high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and pulsed magnetic field therapy (PMFT) have gained increasing attention because of their potential analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and tissue-healing effects.
This retrospective observational study evaluates and compares the clinical outcomes of patients with CTS who received one of three conservative treatment approaches: conventional physical therapy alone, conventional physical therapy combined with HILT, or conventional physical therapy combined with PMFT. Clinical records will be reviewed to assess treatment-related changes in pain intensity, symptom severity, functional status, hand grip strength, and electrophysiological parameters before and after treatment.
The primary objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of these treatment approaches in improving clinical outcomes in patients with CTS. The findings are expected to provide evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of HILT and PMFT as adjunctive treatment options to conventional physical therapy and to support clinical decision-making in the conservative management of carpal tunnel syndrome.
- Conditions
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)
- Being tested
- Conventional Physical Therapy, High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT), Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT)
- Keywords
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, High-Intensity Laser Therapy, Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy, Pain
- Medical subject headings
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Conventional Physical TherapyOther
A standardized conservative treatment program including therapeutic ultrasound, TENS, nerve and tendon gliding exercises, and neutral wrist splinting.
High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT)Other
High-intensity laser therapy was applied according to the standard treatment protocol as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy.
Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT)Other
Pulsed magnetic field therapy was applied according to the standard treatment protocol as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) Group | Participants received high-intensity laser therapy in addition to the conventional physical therapy program. Receives: Other: Conventional Physical Therapy; Other: High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) | |
| Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT) Group | Participants received pulsed magnetic field therapy in addition to the conventional physical therapy program. Receives: Other: Conventional Physical Therapy; Other: Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT) | |
| Conventional Physical Therapy Group | Participants received a conventional physical therapy program consisting of therapeutic ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), nerve and tendon gliding exercises, and the use of a neutral wrist splint. Receives: Other: Conventional Physical Therapy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Intensity
Pain intensity was assessed using a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), with higher scores indicating greater pain severity.
Measured: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Hand Grip Strength
Hand grip strength was measured using a hand dynamometer according to standardized testing procedures. Higher values indicate greater grip strength.
Measured: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)
Symptom Severity and Functional Status
Symptom severity and functional status were evaluated using the Symptom Severity Scale of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Higher scores indicate more severe symptoms.
Measured: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Jul 2026
- Study start20 Jan 2020
- Primary completion20 Oct 2024
- Study completion20 Oct 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)Studies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- KTO Karatay University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07709156
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2026/022
- Status last verified
- Jan 2020
- First submitted
- 13 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 16 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data will not be shared because the study is based on retrospective medical records, and data sharing is restricted to protect participant confidentiality and comply with institutional and ethical requirements.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Effectiveness of Conventional, High-Intensity Laser, and Magnetic Field Therapies in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Retrospective Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07709156
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2026/022
- Conditions
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)
- Keywords
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, High-Intensity Laser Therapy, Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy, Pain
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- KTO Karatay UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Jan 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Oct 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Jul 2026 (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.
This retrospective study aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional physical therapy, high-intensity laser therapy (HILT), and pulsed magnetic field therapy (PMFT) in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The study evaluates changes in pain, symptom severity, functional status, hand grip strength, and electrophysiological findings following treatment. Researchers will compare the outcomes of the three treatment approaches to determine whether HILT or PMFT provides additional clinical benefits beyond conventional therapy. The findings may help clinicians select the most appropriate conservative treatment strategy for patients with CTS.
Detailed description
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral entrapment neuropathy and is characterized by pain, numbness, tingling, weakness, and functional limitations resulting from compression of the median nerve at the wrist. Conservative treatment is recommended for patients with mild-to-moderate CTS and commonly includes physical therapy modalities. Although conventional physiotherapy remains a standard treatment approach, newer modalities such as high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and pulsed magnetic field therapy (PMFT) have gained increasing attention because of their potential analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and tissue-healing effects.
This retrospective observational study evaluates and compares the clinical outcomes of patients with CTS who received one of three conservative treatment approaches: conventional physical therapy alone, conventional physical therapy combined with HILT, or conventional physical therapy combined with PMFT. Clinical records will be reviewed to assess treatment-related changes in pain intensity, symptom severity, functional status, hand grip strength, and electrophysiological parameters before and after treatment.
The primary objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of these treatment approaches in improving clinical outcomes in patients with CTS. The findings are expected to provide evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of HILT and PMFT as adjunctive treatment options to conventional physical therapy and to support clinical decision-making in the conservative management of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) Group | – | Other: Conventional Physical Therapy, Other: High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT)Participants received high-intensity laser therapy in addition to the conventional physical therapy program. |
| Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT) Group | – | Other: Conventional Physical Therapy, Other: Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT)Participants received pulsed magnetic field therapy in addition to the conventional physical therapy program. |
| Conventional Physical Therapy Group | – | Other: Conventional Physical TherapyParticipants received a conventional physical therapy program consisting of therapeutic ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), nerve and tendon gliding exercises, and the use of a neutral wrist splint. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population included adult patients with mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome who completed conservative treatment and had complete pre- and post-treatment clinical assessment records. Participants were classified according to the treatment received: conventional physical therapy, conventional physical therapy plus HILT, or conventional physical therapy plus PMFT.
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)
- Mild-to-moderate CTS not requiring surgical intervention
- Positive Tinel's sign
- Received treatment at the participating center(s) within the past five years
- Complete pre-treatment and post-treatment clinical assessment records
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Previous carpal tunnel surgery or indication for surgical intervention Incomplete medical records
- Failure to complete the treatment protocol
- Presence of concomitant upper extremity disorders that could affect study outcomes
- Presence of neurological, orthopedic, or systemic conditions that could influence the clinical assessments
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Physical TherapyA standardized conservative treatment program including therapeutic ultrasound, TENS, nerve and tendon gliding exercises, and neutral wrist splinting. | Other | Conventional Physical Therapy Group, High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) Group, Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT) Group |
| High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT)High-intensity laser therapy was applied according to the standard treatment protocol as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy. | Other | High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) Group |
| Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT)Pulsed magnetic field therapy was applied according to the standard treatment protocol as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy. | Other | Pulsed Magnetic Field Therapy (PMFT) Group |
Primary outcome
Pain Intensity
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)
Pain intensity was assessed using a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), with higher scores indicating greater pain severity.
2 secondary outcomes
Hand Grip Strength
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)
Symptom Severity and Functional Status
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)
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 16 Jul 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data will not be shared because the study is based on retrospective medical records, and data sharing is restricted to protect participant confidentiality and comply with institutional and ethical requirements.
Related trials for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Postural Control and Balance Performance in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), Postural Assessment
Recruiting
Comparison of Wrist Splint Positions in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), Peripheral Neuropathies
Recruiting
Effects of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation(rPMS) on CTS(Carpal Tunnel Syndrome)
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)
Recruiting
Hand Function Outcome After the Application of Transfer Energy Capacitive and Resistive on Post-burn Patients Presented With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) Post-burn
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Symptom Recovery Time After the Phalen Test in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)
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?
An observational study of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), run by KTO Karatay University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
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 6 inclusion and 4 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 16 Jul 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 Turkey (Türkiye). 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?
Pain Intensity (time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of treatment (4 weeks)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 16 Jul 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 8 Nov 2026.