MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410862385 · doi:10.1002/pri.70045

The Effectiveness of Mulligan's Techniques in Non‐Specific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4410862385 on OpenAlexaff
Jordana Barbosa da Silva, Alexandre Luc, Ana Izabela Sobral de Oliveira‐Souza, Raphael Martins de Abreu, Jakelline Cipriano, Marine de Schaetzen, Laurent Pitance, Susan Armijo‐Olivo

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Research International · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulliganMeta-analysisNeck painMedicineSystematic reviewPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMEDLINEPsychologyAlternative medicineComputer scienceInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mulligan's techniques, such as Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) and Natural Apophyseal Glides (NAGs), are commonly applied by physiotherapists when treating patients with non-specific neck pain (NP). However, there has been no comprehensive synthesis of their effects in NP. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of Mulligan's techniques in reducing pain, improving disability, and enhancing cervical range of motion (CROM) in adults with acute, subacute, or chronic NP. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Mulligan's techniques with other interventions in adults with NP. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Meta-analyses were performed when clinical homogeneity was present; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was used. Certainty of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included. For acute and mixed (acute/subacute/chronic) NP, Mulligan's techniques were no more effective than other interventions for pain reduction, disability improvement, or CROM enhancement. However, in patients with chronic or uncertain chronicity NP, SNAGs combined with other interventions demonstrated superior outcomes-both statistically and sometimes clinically-compared to certain treatments like exercises and muscle-energy techniques, for reducing pain and disability and improving CROM. The certainty of evidence was rated very low. DISCUSSION: Mulligan's techniques appear to be safe, simple, and potentially beneficial for managing mixed or chronic NP when combined with other interventions, presenting results that may be comparable or occasionally superior to other standard techniques. IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE: Physiotherapists may consider incorporating Mulligan's techniques, especially SNAGs, within broader NP treatment strategies, as they offer a feasible, low-risk option for improving patient outcomes, particularly for chronic NP cases when used alongside other therapies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.420 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy Research InternationalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207