Trial reportPloS one2024
Effects of upper thoracic Mulligan mobilization on pain, range of motion and function in patients with mechanical neck pain: A randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of apophyseal glides with and without thoracic postural correction in mechanical neck pain; a randomized controlled trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the impact of Mulligan Reverse Natural Apophyseal Glides (RNAGS) applied to the upper thoracic region on pain, movement limitation, and function in individuals with mechanical neck pain.
methodsConducted between January 2021 and May 2021, the study involved 69 participants randomly assigned to a sham group, physiotherapy group, and Mulligan group. A two-week, 11-session treatment program was administered with shared physiotherapy interventions and stretching exercises to all groups. The Mulligan group received additional mobilization with the Mulligan RNAGS technique. The sham group received sub-standard Mulligan mobilization. Outcome measures included Range of Motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Neck Disability Index (NDI).
resultsNo baseline differences were found in measurements among the groups. After the intervention, all groups showed increased ROM and decreased VAS and NDI scores (p<0.001). The Mulligan group exhibited significantly greater improvement in VAS, ROM, and NDI compared to other groups (p<0.001). The sham group demonstrated greater improvement in NDI and extension ROM compared to the physiotherapy group (p<0.001).
conclusionMulligan RNAGS technique in the upper thoracic region proved beneficial for pain relief, range of motion, and functionality in mechanical neck pain. Long-term effects warrant further exploration through population-based studies.
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.