SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Efficacy of stability exercise-based treatment strategies for non-specific neck pain: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-specific neck pain (NSNP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Stability exercise is widely used in conservative management, but the relative efficacy of different exercise strategies remains unclear. This network meta-analysis evaluated stability exercise-based strategies for NSNP. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to November 24, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with NSNP were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and continuous outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Global consistency and convergence were assessed using ΔDIC and PSRF, respectively. The certainty of evidence for key comparisons was evaluated using CINeMA. Results: Eighteen RCTs involving 950 participants were included; 10 studies were judged as low risk of bias, 4 as having some concerns, and 4 as high risk. Global consistency and convergence were acceptable (all ΔDIC < 5; PSRF = 1), with low-to-moderate heterogeneity across outcomes. For pain, several stability exercise strategies significantly reduced visual analog scale (VAS) scores compared with self-organized exercise (SOE), with shoulder resistance training combined with chest flexibility training (SRT+CFT) showing the greatest estimated reduction (MD = -8.16, 95% CrI: -13.04 to -3.27). For function, no intervention showed a significant advantage for the neck disability index (NDI), although neck resistance training combined with core resistance training (NRT+CRT) had the highest SUCRA value (MD = -27.43, 95% CrI: -58.28 to 3.90). For range of motion (ROM), neck flexibility training combined with NRT (NFT+NRT) had the highest SUCRA values for neck flexion, extension, bilateral lateral flexion, and bilateral rotation. The certainty of evidence was generally low or very low, with few moderate-certainty estimates. Conclusion: Stability exercise-based strategies showed outcome-specific effects in NSNP. NRT, SRT, CRT, NFT, and their combinations may be more beneficial for pain relief and ROM improvement, whereas no clear superiority was found for functional recovery. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because certainty was generally low or very low and several treatment nodes were supported by limited evidence. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/, identifier CRD420251243575.
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.