SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023
The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06049277 (Effects of Mulligan Technique Versus McKenzie Extension Exercise With Manual Traction in Patients With Chronic Unilateral Radicular Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 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.
Effects of Mulligan Technique Versus McKenzie Extension Exercise With Manual Traction in Patients With Chronic Unilateral Radicular Low Back Pain
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- How to tackle non-specific low back pain among adult patients? A systematic review with a meta-analysis to compare four interventions.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- A Comparison of Scar Infiltration, Scar Deactivation, and Standard of Care for Treatment of Chronic, Postsurgical Pain After Cesarean Section in the Primary Setting: A Comparative Effectiveness Trial.Pain research & management · 2026Trial
- Clinical Examination, Diagnosis, and Conservative Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effects of a Therapeutic Exercise Protocol for Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Back Pain in Primary Health Care: A Single-Group Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment).
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN
resultsThis review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants). AUTHORS'
conclusionsBased on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.
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.