Low back pain (LBP) is a pervasive problem that individuals encounter at a particular time in their lives. Additionally, its substantial mass soundness and healthiness is an issue in industrialized provinces which prompts individual torment, absenteeism from employment, and, in some cases, primaeval retirement. Evaluating the commonness of LBP is problematic as the cumulative occurrences of earliest episodes of LBP are formerly eminent by the primaeval adolescent, and indications are susceptible to recur over time. Considering the familiar pathology that is difficult to treat effectively, LBP epitomizes a high financial burden for the community and the health system. It is considered one of the leading grounds of primary and specialized care consultations. Pain intensity, degree of pain interference with activities of daily living (resulting in disability), and health-related quality of life are among the primary outcomes in studies in patients with LBP. Over and above that, age, psychological factors, for instance, emotional distress, and dysfunctional pain coping mechanisms assume an essential role in the development and/or persistence of nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Various clinicians use dry needling to treat myofascial pain and motor dysfunction. Disabling low back pain is partly iatrogenic in meagre-income countries, and for indigenous and assimilated populations in opulence-income countries, exposure to health care can intermittently have harmful consequences. Over-medicalization disproportionately masquerades the wealthy minority; however, it also threatens to alleviate the approachability of high-value healthcare facilities for the poor majority and further widen health and social disparities. Protection of the public from unproven or harmful approaches to managing LBP stipulates supervision and healthcare leaders to tackle entrenched and counterproductive reimbursement strategies, vested interests, and financial and professional incentives. As with drugs, which are subject to strict regulation in many countries, new diagnostic tests and non-drug treatments should be available only in trials until their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness are established by robust research evidence.

Dry needling is a therapeutic procedure comprising of the insertion of a thin filiform needle directly into myofascial trigger points, although clinicians often view the elicitation of local twitch response during dry needling as a primary goal and indicator of successful treatment, there is scarce evidence supporting this assertion. Applying Dry needling along the combination of physiotherapy to treat low back pain has dramatically advanced the understanding of the prognostic significance of both physical & psychosocial factors in individual patients. An active ongoing monitoring system is crucial to assess the effects of new strategies on outcomes such as disability, ability to work, and social participation. Dry needling (DN) is a minimally invasive physiotherapy technique used to treat neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Its goal is to restore the physiological state of the tissue, reduce pain levels, and increase mobility by applying mechanical stimuli caused by the insertion of acupuncture needles. These techniques are typical of physiotherapy, in which the physical agents pass through the patient’s skin.

In Bangladesh, there is paucity enough relatable research regarding clinical trials. The present study arises from the need to deepen knowledge about the treatment of LBP through physiotherapy techniques which clinical trial is scantly in our country’s field. The goal was to assess the effectiveness of invasive procedures ‘specifically DN’ in pain levels and their relationship with other measurement variables to establish action guidelines for the physiotherapeutic approach to LBP. Therefore, the main objective is to do a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of dry needling in the treatment of chronic low back pain.