<b>Effect of Ischemic Pressure with Passive Stretching versus Dynamic Cupping in Alleviating Neck and Upper Back Pain Due to Myofascial Trigger Points in the Upper Trapezius of Computer Users</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neck and upper back pain are increasingly prevalent among computer users due to prolonged static postures and ergonomic strain, with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in the upper trapezius being a common underlying cause. Non-invasive physiotherapy techniques such as dynamic cupping and ischemic compression with passive stretching have demonstrated clinical efficacy, yet direct comparative evidence in occupational cohorts remains limited. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of dynamic cupping therapy and ischemic compression combined with passive stretching in reducing pain, improving cervical range of motion, and decreasing the number of palpable MTrPs in male computer users. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted among 40 male participants aged 20–40 years with confirmed trapezius MTrPs. Participants were conveniently allocated into two groups (n=20 each): Group A received dynamic cupping, and Group B received ischemic compression with passive stretching. Both groups received four sessions over two weeks. Outcome measures included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), McGill Pain Questionnaire, cervical extension and side flexion via goniometry, and trigger point palpation. Independent t-tests and within-group comparisons were conducted using SPSS v21, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant within-group improvements in NPRS, McGill scores, cervical mobility, and trigger point reduction (all p<0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between groups post-intervention (p>0.32 for all outcomes), and effect sizes were negligible (Cohen’s d < 0.2), indicating comparable clinical efficacy. Conclusion: Dynamic cupping and ischemic compression with passive stretching are equally effective in managing MTrP related neck and upper back pain among computer users. Either technique may be selected based on clinical setting, therapist preference, or patient comfort, offering flexible, evidence-based options for myofascial pain management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".