OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of electrical dry needling with a non-invasive multi-component intervention in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN A randomised single-blind clinical trial. SETTING Outpatient Physiotherapy Clinic; home. PARTICIPANTS Sixty-four patients with chronic low back pain aged 30-65 years. INTERVENTIONS Six-week electrical dry needling on myofascial trigger points, and a non-invasive multicomponent intervention (home exercise programme, stretching and ischemic compression). MAIN MEASURES Pain (Visual Analogue Scale), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), quality of life and sleep (Short Form 36-item Health Survey and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), isometric endurance of trunk flexor muscles (McQuade test), lumbar mobility in flexion (finger-to-floor distance), and pressure pain threshold (algometer) were assessed at baseline, after 6 weeks, and after 2 months. RESULTS ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in group-by-time interaction for most pain pressure thresholds of myofascial trigger points (P < 0.05), for disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: F = 6.14, P = 0.016; and Oswestry Disability Index: F = 7.36, P = 0.009), for trunk anteflexion (F = 10.03, P = 0.002) and for habitual sleep efficacy (F = 6.65, P = 0.012), use of hypnotics (F = 4.77, P = 0.033) and total score of quality of sleep (F = 8.23, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS In comparison to a non-invasive multicomponent intervention, electrical dry needling has more positive effects on disability, pain intensity, kinesiophobia, and reducing patients' sensitivity to myofascial trigger points pressure, at post-treatment and at 2 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT04804228. Registered on May 28th, 2021. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04804228.

中文翻译：

---

电干针与非侵入性多成分干预治疗慢性腰痛患者肌筋膜触发点：一项随机临床试验。

目的 比较干针电针与非侵入性多成分干预对慢性腰痛患者的疗效。设计一项随机单盲临床试验。设置物理治疗门诊；家。参与者 64 名年龄在 30-65 岁之间的慢性腰痛患者。干预 对肌筋膜触发点进行为期六周的干电针治疗，以及非侵入性多成分干预（家庭锻炼计划、拉伸和缺血性压迫）。主要指标 疼痛（视觉模拟量表）、残疾（罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷和 Oswestry 残疾指数）、运动恐惧症（坦帕运动恐惧量表）、生活和睡眠质量（简式 36 项健康调查和匹兹堡睡眠质量指数）、在基线、6周后和2个月后评估躯干屈肌的等长耐力（麦奎德测试）、屈曲腰椎活动度（手指到地板的距离）和压痛阈值（痛觉计）。结果方差分析显示，对于肌筋膜触发点的大多数疼痛压力阈值（P < 0.05）和残疾（Roland-Morris 残疾问卷：F = 6.14，P = 0.016；Oswestry 残疾指数： F = 7.36，P = 0.009），躯干前屈（F = 10.03，P = 0.002）和习惯性睡眠功效（F = 6.65，P = 0.012），催眠药的使用（F = 4.77，P = 0.033）和总计睡眠质量评分（F = 8.23，P = 0.006）。结论 与非侵入性多成分干预相比，干电针疗法在治疗后和治疗 2 个月时对残疾、疼痛强度、运动恐惧症以及降低患者对肌筋膜触发点压力的敏感性具有更积极的作用。临床试验注册号 NCT04804228。注册于 2021 年 5 月 28 日。可访问 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04804228。