Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The Effectiveness of Neuromobilization in Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: Neuromobilization exercises (NE) could be a useful therapeutic tool to induce analgesia and increase function and range of motion (ROM) in patients with musculoskeletal pathologies with neuropathic components; however, the effectiveness of this intervention in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of NE in CR on pain, function, and ROM.

DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro, and EBSCO databases from inception until June 2022. The authors included randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of NE against control groups or other interventions that aimed to treat patients with CR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria, and for the quantitative synthesis, 5 studies were included. For the studies that compared NE with a control group, the standardized mean difference for pain was -1.33/10 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to -0.86; P < .01; I2 = 0%), for function with the Neck Disability Index was -1.21/50 (95% CI, -1.67 to -0.75; P < .01; I2 = 0%), and for neck flexion and extensions was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.23 to 1.10; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.90; P < .01; I2 = 0%), respectively, with evidence of clinical effectiveness. These findings were based on moderate-quality evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation rating. In studies that compared NE with other interventions, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate the statistical or clinical superiority of NE.

CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality of evidence suggests that NE may be superior to no treatment for pain, function, and ROM in patients with CR. In contrast, NE are not superior to other interventions in the same outcomes, based on low- to very low-quality evidence. More high-quality research is needed to assess the consistency of these results.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app