ReviewBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Corrective exercises strongly improve posture but fail to produce consistent clinical or functional benefits in patients with upper crossed syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper Crossed Syndrome (UCS) is a prevalent postural dysfunction involving muscular imbalances and misalignments of the neck, thoracic spine, and shoulder girdle, leading to pain and functional limitation. While corrective exercises (CE) are widely recommended to restore posture and improve musculoskeletal function, their effectiveness across different outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of CE on posture, function, and pain in individuals with UCS.
methodsFour databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase) were searched from inception to November 2025. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on individuals with UCS evaluating CE versus controls. Data extraction followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool. Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity (I
resultsTwenty-eight RCTs (n = 901) were included. CE significantly improved forward head angle (SMD: -1.49; 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.06; p < 0.01) with high heterogeneity (I
conclusionCE produces large, significant improvements in postural alignment in individuals with UCS. However, evidence for clinically meaningful benefits in pain, function, and muscle strength remains limited and inconsistent. These findings suggest that while CE effectively addresses biomechanical postural deficits, their translation to symptom relief and functional improvement is uncertain. Future research should establish standardized CE protocols, include long-term follow-up, and employ validated clinical outcome measures to determine whether postural corrections yield sustained clinical benefits.
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.