Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36472990›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Comparison of neural mobilization and conservative treatment on pain, range of motion, and disability in cervical radiculopathy: A randomized controlled trial.

Shazia Rafiq, Hamayun Zafar, Syed Amir Gillani, Muhammad Sharif Waqas, Amna Zia, Sidrah Liaqat, Yasir Rafiq

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06663592 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Slider and Tensioner Neurodynamic Mobilization Techniques in Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled36ConditionsCervical Radiculopathy, Neuromobılızatıon, Median Nerve, ElectromyographyArmsConventional treatment, Tensioner Neuro Dynamic Mobilization, Slider Neuro Dynamic Mobilization
NCT07628348 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Diaphragmatic Release Technique on Neck Pain, Range of Motion, and Chest Expansion in Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsCervical RadiculopathyArmsDiaphragmatic Release Technique, Traditional Physical Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Shazia RafiqPhysiotherapy Department, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-8589-4140
Hamayun ZafarUniversity Institute Physical Therapy, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
Syed Amir GillaniAllied Health Science, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
Muhammad Sharif WaqasServices Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.
Amna ZiaPhysiotherapy Department, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-9825-5938
Sidrah LiaqatPhysiotherapy Department, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.
Yasir RafiqPathology Department, Combined Military Hospital, Kohat, Pakistan.
Mayo Hospital · PKUniversity of Lahore · PKCombined Military Hospital · PKJinnah Postgraduate Medical Center · PKServices Hospital · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of neural mobilization technique with conservative treatment on pain intensity, cervical range of motion, and disability.

methodsIt was a randomized clinical trial; data was collected from Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Eighty-eight patients fulfilling the sample selection criteria were randomly assigned into group 1 (neural mobilization) and group 2 (conventional treatment). Pain intensity was measured on a numeric pain rating scale, range of motion with an inclinometer, and functional status with neck disability index (NDI). Data were analyzed using SPSS, repeated measure ANOVA for cervical ranges and the Friedman test for NPRS and NDI were used for within-group analysis. Independent samples t-test for cervical ranges and Mann-Whitney U test for NPRS and NDI were used for between-group comparisons.

resultsThere was a significant improvement in pain, disability, and cervical range of motion after the treatment in both groups compared to the pre-treatment status (p < 0.001), and when both groups were compared neural mobilization was more effective than conventional treatment in reducing pain and neck disability (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference present in the mean score of cervical range of motion between both groups. (p>0.05).

conclusionsThe present study concluded that both neural mobilization and conservative treatment were effective as an exercise program for patients with cervical radiculopathy, however, neural mobilization was more effective in reducing pain and neck disability in cervical radiculopathy.

trial registrationRCT20190325043109N1.

Indexed as

RadiculopathyConservative TreatmentExerciseHumansPainResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID36472990
PMCPMC9725158
OpenAlexW4311587118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.