ArticleCureus2025
Effect of Kinetic Control Training and McKenzie's Approach on Pain and Mobility in Cervical Derangement Syndrome: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCervical derangement syndrome (CDS), a form of mechanical neck pain, arises from poor posture, repetitive stress, and segmental dysfunction, resulting in discomfort, restricted cervical mobility, and reduced functional capacity. The study focuses on changes associated with CDS, particularly range of motion (ROM), pain, and functional disability. The study aims to find the effect of kinetic control training (KCT) and the McKenzie approach on CDS. The McKenzie approach emphasizes symptom centralization through repeated directional movements, while KCT focuses on restoring movement efficiency via motor control retraining. This study compares their effectiveness in managing CDS.
objectivesThe study aimed to determine the effect of KCT and the McKenzie approach on pain, functional disability, and ROM in individuals suffering from CDS.
methodsA comparative study was conducted involving 112 participants diagnosed with CDS. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups using the envelope method. Group A (McKenzie) and Group B (KCT), with 56 participants in each group initially. Following the exclusion of six participants, the final sample consisted of 53 participants in Group A and 53 in Group B. Both groups received baseline conventional therapy followed by six weeks of their respective interventions. Pre- and post-intervention outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and cervical ROM. Statistical analysis was conducted using paired and unpaired t-tests via IBM SPSS Statistics, version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
resultsThe findings demonstrated statistically significant enhancements in pain intensity, functional capacity, and cervical ROM in both groups. But Group B (KCT) demonstrated superior outcomes (p < 0.0001). In Group B (activity), VAS, NDI, and ROM improved significantly in all directions compared to Group A (McKenzie).
conclusionThe study concluded that a six-week intervention of KCT is more effective than the McKenzie approach in reducing pain and enhancing functional capacity and cervical mobility in individuals with CDS.
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.