ReviewCureus2025
Multimodal Physiotherapy Interventions for Cervical Myofascial Pain (2019-2025): A Structured Narrative Literature Review of Randomized Trials.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) causes substantial pain and disability, but recent physiotherapy evidence remains fragmented. This structured narrative literature review synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2019 to 2025 on non-pharmacological physiotherapy interventions for cervical myofascial pain. PubMed and PEDro were searched for English-language RCTs, and reporting followed the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). Sixty-seven trials were included. Dry needling (DN) was most studied, with consistent short- to mid-term improvements in pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), and range of motion (ROM), especially when paired with exercise or manual therapy. Myofascial release methods (ischemic compression, cupping, instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization, integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique) yielded short-term analgesia and functional gains, with some protocols showing better retention. Structured exercise produced the most reliable benefits and enhanced outcomes when combined with DN or release techniques. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and transfer of energy capacitive and resistive therapy (TECAR) performed comparably to DN in several trials, though long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness data are limited. Laser, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and microcurrent showed mixed but generally positive effects. Multimodal programs outperformed single-modality care. Future research should adopt standardized, sham-controlled designs with extended follow-up periods to establish long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
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.