SynthesisPloS one2024
Neural mobilisation effects in nerve function and nerve structure of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07515144 (Effect of Lower Limb Neural Mobilization on Selective Neuromuscular Variables and Calf Muscle Thickness in Elderly Population With Sarcopenia), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Effect of Lower Limb Neural Mobilization on Selective Neuromuscular Variables and Calf Muscle Thickness in Elderly Population With Sarcopenia
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technique-specific reduction of sciatic nerve stiffness through neurodynamic stretches at submaximal and maximal intensity in asymptomatic individuals.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Trial
- Systematic Approach to the Management of Neuropathic Groin Pain: A 20-year Retrospective Cohort Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effects of neural mobilisation on nerve function and nerve structure of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain.
methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched without restrictions. Eligibility criteria included controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies comparing neural mobilisation versus sham, active or inactive control in adults with peripheral neuropathic pain. Primary outcomes were the change in peripheral nerve cross-sectional area. Secondary outcomes included nerve echogenicity, nerve excursion and nerve conduction. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.
resultsEleven randomised controlled trials and four quasi-experimental studies (total sample = 722 participants) were included. Thirteen studies included participants with carpal tunnel syndrome. Two studies examined the cross-sectional area, revealing improvements (i.e., a reduction) in the cross-sectional area after the neural mobilisation. Neural mobilisation improved motor [mean difference = 2.95 (95%CI 1.67 to 4.22)] and sensory conduction velocity in short-term [mean difference = 11.74 (95%CI 7.06 to 16.43)], compared to control. Neural mobilisation did not alter distal motor or sensory latency.
conclusionNeural mobilisation seems to improve (i.e., a reduced) the cross-sectional area (very low-quality evidence) and sensory conduction velocity (very low-quality evidence). Neural mobilisation was superior to control in improving motor conduction velocity in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain with moderate quality evidence. Distal motor or sensory latency presented similar results compared to other interventions. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously since most studies included patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.
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.