Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42093795›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Development and Validation of a Novel Neck Care Module in Patients With Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain.

Sneha Ganu, Annamma Varghese, Priti Mehendale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sneha GanuMusculoskeletal Physiotherapy, K J Somaiya College of Physiotherapy, Mumbai, IND.
Annamma VargheseMusculoskeletal Physiotherapy, K J Somaiya College of Physiotherapy, Mumbai, IND.
Priti MehendalePhysiotherapy, Parul Institute of Doctoral Studies, Parul University, Vadodara, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNeck and back pain represent a major source of disability worldwide and are associated with significant health and economic impacts. Patient education and self-management are recognized as essential components of chronic pain management within multidisciplinary care approaches. However, despite the widespread use of various educational strategies in clinical practice, there is a notable scarcity of literature from India on structured educational materials or programs specifically designed to address chronic neck pain, indicating a critical gap in culturally relevant, evidence-based educational interventions in this context. AIM AND

objectivesThis study aims to develop and validate a neck care module for patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. The first objective is to develop a structured neck care module specifically designed for individuals experiencing chronic mechanical neck pain. The second objective is to evaluate the developed module for face and content validity to ensure its clarity, relevance, comprehensiveness, and suitability for patient education and clinical use. MATERIALS AND

methodsPhase 1 of the study involved the systematic development of a neck care module through four sequential stages. First, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant evidence and existing recommendations related to the management of chronic mechanical neck pain. Second, illustrative images were created to visually support the educational content and enhance patient understanding. Third, the module was prepared by integrating evidence-based information with the developed visual materials to ensure clarity and practical applicability. Finally, the preliminary module was reviewed through consultation with multidisciplinary stakeholders involved in pain management to obtain expert input and refine the content. Draft versions of the module were evaluated using the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT) to assess understandability and actionability. The final module was validated for content and face validity by experts and the target audience, respectively.  Results: The developed neck care module demonstrated acceptable content validity (CVI = 0.85) and excellent face validity (97.89% agreement), indicating that experts and target users perceive the module's content as relevant, comprehensive, and appropriate for patients with chronic mechanical pain.

conclusionThese validation findings support the module's potential as a reliable educational tool to enhance patient understanding and self-management, warranting further evaluation of its clinical effectiveness in practice.

Indexed as

content validityexercisesface validitymechanical neck painpatient educationposture correction

Identifiers

PMID42093795
PMCPMC13142895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.