The Effectiveness of Mulligan's Techniques in Non‐Specific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".