SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Comparison of clinical efficacy of different exercise therapies in the treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic nonspecific neck pain (CNSNP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder that significantly impacts patients' quality of life and imposes a considerable social and economic burden. Although drug treatment is widely used, it has limitations such as adverse reactions and limited long-term efficacy. Therefore, exercise therapy has gradually become the first-line intervention method. However, there is still a lack of systematic evidence for the efficacy comparison among different exercise therapies. Objective: This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of different exercise therapies in treating CNSNP, providing evidence support for clinical intervention selection. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, VIP, SinoMed, CNKI, and Wanfang databases up to November 25, 2025, for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of different exercise therapies in patients with CNSNP. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing the efficacy of different exercise therapies in patients with CNSNP. The primary outcome measures were the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2.0. Network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 and R 4.5.2, and the intervention measures were ranked using the cumulative ranking area under the curve (SUCRA). The evidence quality was evaluated using the CINeMA tool. Results: A total of 17 studies were included, involving 1,224 patients and 16 intervention measures. The risk of bias assessment showed that 12 studies (70.6%) were of moderate risk, and 5 studies (29.4%) were of high risk. There was no significant difference in improving neck function (NDI) among the intervention measures. The SUCRA value of BBAT (biological feedback-assisted training) was the highest (0.78), but this result was supported by only a small sample of single studies, and the robustness was limited. In terms of reducing pain (VAS), muscle energy technique (MET) was significantly superior to conventional exercise therapy ( Conclusion: Muscle energy technique (MET) shows certain advantages in alleviating chronic nonspecific neck pain, but there is no significant difference among the intervention measures in improving neck function. Due to the sparse network connection of some intervention measures and the reliance on indirect evidence in most comparisons, the SUCRA ranking results should be regarded as exploratory findings and are not sufficient to form clear clinical recommendations. Future high-quality, large-sample, and long-term follow-up head-to-head randomized controlled trials are needed to further verify the efficacy differences of different exercise therapies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251249215.
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.