Trial reportPhysiological reports2023
Acute effects of a single neurodynamic mobilization session on range of motion and H-reflex in asymptomatic young subjects: A controlled study.
Trial report in Physiological reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute effects of a single neurodynamic mobilization session on range of motion and H-reflex in asymptomatic young subjects: A controlled study.Physiological reports · 2023Trial
- Effect of neurodynamic mobilization on lower limb function in patients with mild post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis.World journal of orthopedics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurodynamic techniques have yielded good clinical results in the treatment of various pathologies. The objective of this study is to examine the short-term effects of neurodynamic techniques of the sciatic nerve on hip ROM (range of motion) and on the amplitude and latency of the soleus H-reflex and M-waves, in young asymptomatic subjects. In a double-blind controlled trial design, 60 young asymptomatic participants were randomly assigned into six groups with different levels of manipulation of the sciatic nerve. The passive straight leg raise test was used to evaluate the hip ROM amplitude. All evaluations were performed before, 1 min after, and 30 min after intervention. For each time-point, spinal and muscle excitability were also tested. ROM increased in all groups, but none of the treatment groups had superior effects than the group with no treatment. This means that ROM testing maneuvers increased ROM amplitude, with no add-on effect of the proposed neurodynamic techniques. Neurophysiological responses changed similarly in all groups, showing that the aftereffects were not intervention-specific. We observed a significant negative association between the change in limb temperature and the change in latencies of all potentials. ROM-testing procedures performed repeatedly increase ROM amplitude. This observation should be considered when evaluating the aftereffects of therapeutic interventions on ROM amplitude. None of the explored neurodynamic techniques produced acute aftereffects on hip ROM amplitude, spinal or muscle excitability different to the induced by the ROM testing maneuver.
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.