Comparison of the Effects of Dry Needling and Cupping therapy on Pain Intensity, Range of Motion, and Function of the Hamstring Muscle with Active Myofascial Trigger Points in amateur athletes

To compare the effects of dry needling and cupping therapy in hamstring mucle with active trigger points

This study involves the voluntary allocation of participants after they sign a consent form. Randomization is performed using the block randomization method with a block size of 4 to ensure participants are balanced between the two intervention groups (dry needling + static stretching or cupping therapy + static stretching). Within each block of 4 individuals, 2 are assigned to each group to maintain balance between the groups.

The initial collection of participant demographics (age, weight, height) and all assessments will be conducted by a blinded physical therapist at the Tehran Physiotherapy Clinic and Rehabilitation School. These assessments will take place at four time points: baseline, immediately after the first session, after the final session, and two weeks post-treatment.

Individuals aged 18 to 40 years - Patients with active trigger points in the hamstring muscle, diagnosis of active trigger points will be performed according to the Travell & Simons criteria Exclusions: - Having a history of orthopedic or neurological problems in the lower extremities - Having back pain at the time of the study

The group receiving static stretch and dry needling and the group receiving static stretch and cupping therapy

Pain intensity - range of motion - hamstring muscle flexibility with active knee extension test - passive stretch tolerance of hamstring muscles - peak passive torque of hamstring muscles against stretch

Randomization is performed using the Block Randomization method as follows to allocate participants evenly to one of the two intervention groups of dry needling plus static stretch or cupping therapy plus static stretch. A) Randomization and allocation to groups: Given that we have 2 groups in this study, the block size must be divisible by 2, which is the most common block size when we have 2 study groups, 4, from each block of 4 people, 2 people are placed in the dry needling group and 2 people in the cupping group. All possible combinations for a block include AABB, ABAB, ABBA, BBAA, BABA, BAAB…. Each person enters the study based on the order in the selected block. For example, if the randomization block is AABB, the first two people will enter the dry needling group and the second two people will enter the cupping group, so that we finally have two equal groups.

This study is single-blind, and the outcome assessor is completely blinded to the participants’ allocation to the treatment groups (dry needling or cupping therapy). Implementation of Blinding: Independent Assessment: Outcome assessment is conducted by an individual who has no role in the intervention delivery or participant allocation to groups. Information Protection: Participant allocation to groups is managed by an assessor external to the research team. The outcome assessor works solely with anonymized participant codes, not group names. Randomization Method (Blocking): To ensure group balance and prevent premature disclosure of allocation, the blocking method has been employed. In this method, blocks with specific combinations (e.g., AABB, ABAB) are defined, and participants are assigned to groups based on their order of entry into these blocks.

Comparison of the effects of dry needling and cupping therapy on pain intensity, range of motion, and hamstring muscle function in amateur athletes.” Data Description: “The data includes measurements of pain intensity, range of motion, and hamstring muscle function. As no identifying information was recorded, a significant portion of the data is shareable.

Six months after publication

Academic researchers and those who are industrially involved.

Citation and referencing are fully permitted.

via this email address: saraslifeonig@gmail.com

The requester first submits an official request, and after the initial review, assessment of ethical/legal restrictions, and final preparation of the data, the files are provided by the author. Depending on the type of data, the entire process typically takes between 3 and 20 working days.