ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Unlocking the Effects of Neural Mobilization versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Cervical Radiculopathy.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As we know that there are many complaints regarding cervical radiculopathy (CR) coming up nowadays. CR has many more causes, such as poor posture, screen time, prolong working duration on computer system, high pillow, sudden jerk, etc. Along with the above-mentioned causes physical activity also influences the CR cases. Lack of physical activity reduces the strength of the surrounding muscle which increases the chances for CR. A person with regular physical activity has less-chances of such conditions. Objectives: To unlock the effects of neural mobilization (NM) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in CR. Materials and Methods: Total 30 patients were selected and divided into two groups randomly. Patients were informed about the study and one group was treated with TENS and the other group was treated with NM. Two outcome measures were used to assess the pain and neck pain disability. Results: The result of the study has shown the difference between pre- and post-treatment but the NM (Median Nerve Mobilization [ULTT 1]; Median Nerve Mobilization [ULTT 2A]; Radial Nerve Mobilization [ULTT 2B]; Ulnar Nerve Mobilization [ULTT 3]) and TENS (Conventional/Continuous Mode) are equally effective in CR patients (P <0.05). Conclusion: The study concluded that NM and TENS are equally effective in CR.
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.