Effectiveness of Myofascial Release for Upper Trapezius Myofascial Pain: A Systematic Literature Review

Ni Putu Diah Anantari (Program Studi Magister Fisiologi Olahraga, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Udayana, Indonesia)
I Dewa Ayu Inten Dwi Primayanti (Departmen Fisiologi Olahraga, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Udayana, Indonesia)

FISIO MU: Physiotherapy Evidences
Vol. 7 No. 3 (2026): Movement to Recovery: Contemporary Physiotherapy in Practice

Introduction: Myofascial pain in the upper trapezius is one of the causes of neck pain, often associated with myofascial trigger points, tenderness, stiffness, restricted cervical movement and reduced function. Myofascial release (MFR) is a physiotherapy intervention aimed at reducing soft tissue restrictions and modulating pain; however, its effectiveness still varies due to differences in technique, intervention dosage, population characteristics, and comparison groups. This review aims to analyse the effectiveness of MFR on pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), cervical range of motion (CROM), neck disability, and function in individuals with upper trapezius myofascial pain. Methods: A literature review was conducted via a structured search of publications from 2021 to 2026, adhering to the PRISMA principles, through PubMed/PMC, Google Scholar, publishers’ websites, and a search of relevant references. A total of ten core publications, comprising clinical trials, randomised controlled trials, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses, were narratively synthesised as the primary basis for the analysis, whilst additional sources were used to strengthen the methodological context and discussion. Results: The results of the synthesis indicate that MFR is generally associated with a reduction in pain intensity, an increase in PPT, improvements in CROM, neck disability, and several aspects of function, particularly in the short term. However, the evidence regarding the superiority of MFR over other interventions such as IASTM, trigger point release, dry needling, or stretching remains inconsistent. Variations in MFR techniques, therapeutic dosage, the use of co-interventions, subject characteristics, follow-up duration, and differences in measurement instruments have led to study heterogeneity, which limits the certainty and generalisability of the results. Conclusion: MFR may be considered as one of the non-invasive interventions within a multimodal rehabilitation approach; however, further research is required with more standardised protocols, clearly defined comparison groups, and longer follow-up periods.