ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Manual Therapy for Cervical Radiculopathy: Effects on Neck Disability and Pain - A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Effects of Parameter Combinations in Cervical Rotation-Traction Manipulation on Intervertebral Foramen Opening and Biomechanical Responses: A Finite Element Study.Journal of pain research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the application effects of different manual therapy approaches in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy using a network meta-analysis. Methods: Prospective randomized controlled trials on manual therapy for cervical radiculopathy published in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were retrieved. The neck disability index and visual analogue scale for neck pain were collected and subjected to network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 8 eligible studies involving 632 participants with a mean age range of 40-47 years were included. The intervention duration ranged from 4 to 6 weeks. Three intervention groups were defined: Group C (exercise and other therapies without manual therapy), Group M (manual therapy without traction), and Group MT (manual therapy with traction). Larger circles indicate more patients, and thicker lines show more studies comparing interventions. Group M had the highest probability (68.1%) of improving the neck disability index, followed by Group MT (29.1%), with Group C the lowest (2.8%). Compared to Group C, neck disability index scores improved by 0.58 (95% CI: -0.17, 1.33) in Group M and by 0.36 (95% CI: -0.39, 1.11) in Group MT. The difference between Group M and Group MT was not significant (0.22, 95% CI: -0.59, 1.03). For neck pain (visual analogue scale score), Group M had the highest probability (59.5%) of improvement, followed by Group MT (39.6%), with Group C the lowest (0.9%). Compared to Group C, the visual analogue scale score improved by 0.74 (95% CI: -0.04, 1.52) in Group M and by 0.61 (95% CI: -0.18, 1.40) in Group MT. The difference between Group M and Group MT was not significant (0.13, 95% CI: -0.72, 0.98). Egger's regression test showed no apparent publication bias. Conclusion: Manual therapy is an effective approach for improving neck pain and neck disability index in patients with cervical radiculopathy, but more evidence-based support is needed regarding the use of cervical traction.
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.