Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

A randomized controlled trial on the effects of "global postural re-education" versus neck specific exercise on pain, disability, postural control, and neuromuscular features in women with chronic non-specific neck pain [with consumer summary]
Mendes Fernandes T, Mendez-Sanchez R, Puente-Gonzalez AS, Martin-Vallejo FJ, Falla D, Vila-Cha C
European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2023 Feb;59(1):42-53
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is associated with decreased health-related quality of life, decreased work productivity, and increased visits to health care providers. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of "global postural re-education" (GPR) versus a neck specific exercise (SE) program on neck pain, disability, cervical range of movement, postural stability, and activity of the superficial cervical flexor muscles. DESIGN: A parallel-group and single-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Community interventions. POPULATION: Fifty women with non-specific chronic neck pain (NSCNP). METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two intervention groups (GPR (n = 25) or SE (n = 25)). Both interventions consisted of eight sessions of approximately 40 minutes duration, performed twice a week, for four weeks. Outcomes included neck pain intensity and disability, cervical range of motion (CROM), postural sway, and activity of the superficial neck flexor muscles during a cranio-cervical flexion test (CCFT). All outcomes were assessed twice before the intervention and immediately following eight treatment sessions over four weeks. RESULTS: Both interventions were equally effective in reducing neck pain (p < 0.001, partial-eta2 = 0.770) and disability (p < 0.001, partial-eta2 = 0.306), improving neck mobility (p < 0.001, 0.385 <= partial-eta2 <= 0.623, for all measurements) and decreasing the activity of the superficial cervical flexor muscles (p > 0.001). Neither intervention altered postural sway. CONCLUSIONS: Our results revealed that GPR and SE induced significant positive results in all measures apart from postural stability but with no difference between the interventions.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help