ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
McKenzie treatment versus mulligan sustained natural apophyseal glides for chronic mechanical low back pain.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effect of Spinal Decompression With and Without ELDOA in Patients of Lumber Disc Protrusion
Effects of Mulligan Technique Versus McKenzie Extension Exercise With Manual Traction in Patients With Chronic Unilateral Radicular Low Back Pain
Comparative Effects of McGill and McKenzie Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Disability in Patients With Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of low back pain and lumbosacral radicular syndrome: the Guideline of the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF).European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Guideline
- The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of Integrated Therapeutic Methods in Noninvasive Lower Back Pain Therapy (LBP): The Role of Interdisciplinary Functional Diagnostics.Pain research & management · 2020Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Pooled it
- Outcomes of Mulligan Concept Applications in Obese Individuals with Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2024Article
- The effects of Core Stability Exercises and Mulligan's mobilization with movement techniques on sacroiliac joint dysfunction.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and Treatment Based on Functional Movement Impairment: A New Model of Functional Restoration Directed to Correction of Pathoanatomic and Pathophysiology of Tissues-Part I.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- Article
- Effectiveness of mechanical diagnosis and therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a literature review with meta-analysis.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveChronic mechanical low back pain is common among different age groups and genders. Different manual therapy techniques combined with exercise therapy and electrotherapy modalities play an important role in its management. Our objective was to compare the effects of McKenzie extension exercisesprogram (EEP) versus Mulligan Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) for chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP).
methodsThis randomized control trial (RCT) was conducted at Riphah Physical Rehabilitation Centre, Pakistan Railways General Hospital Rawalpindi, from 1(st) July to 31(st) December 2014. The inclusion criteria was patients of both gender and age range 30-70 years with minimum 4 weeks history of CMLBP. A total of 37 patients were screened out as per inclusion criteria and randomly placed into two groups. Twenty patients in group A were treated with Mulligan SNAGs and 17 patients in group B with McKenzie EEP for four weeks at two session per week and single session per day. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Scale (ODI) and lumber Range of Motion (ROM) were used as an assessment tools and were measured at baseline and at the completion 4 weeks intervention. The data was analyzed with SPSS to draw the statistical and clinical significance of both interventions.
resultsAt the completion of 4 weeks intervention the pre and post statistical analysis revealed that clinically the McKenzie EEP improved pain (mean 9.12 to 1.46) and disability (73.82 to 6.24) slightly more than Mulligan SNAGs (pain: from 8.85 to 2.55, disability 73.75 to 7.05), while the Mulligan SNAGs improved lumbar ROM more effectively than McKenzie EEP in all directions including flexion, extension, side bending and rotation. Statistically there was no significant difference between the effects of two interventions in managing pain and disability, and improving Lumber ROM.
conclusionMcKenzie EEP is clinically slightly more effective in the management of pain and disability as compared with Mulligan SNAGs, while Mulligan SNAGs are more effective in the improvement of lumbar ROM as compared with Mechanize EEP in the management of CMLBP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.