Manipulation and Mobilisation for Neck Pain Contrasted Against an Inactive Control or Another Active Treatment (Cochrane Review)
51 Trials, 2,920 Participants
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26397370/
REFERENCE
31
NICE
REFERENCE
123
organisation
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
TITLE
Manipulation and Mobilisation for Neck Pain Contrasted Against an Inactive Control or Another Active Treatment (Cochrane Review)
51 Trials, 2,920 Participants
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26397370/
DISC COMMENTARY
This Cochrane systematic review pooled 51 randomised trials involving nearly 2,920 people to assess how well manipulation and mobilisation work for neck pain, comparing these manual therapies against inactive controls and other active treatments across a range of specific techniques.
What was studied?
The review compared manipulation and mobilisation techniques, including thoracic manipulation and single or multiple sessions of cervical manipulation, against inactive controls and medication, across trials covering acute, subacute and longer-term neck pain.
What did they find?
Thoracic manipulation gave the clearest benefit, producing large short-term gains in pain and function for acute neck pain. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation beat medication on pain and function, with benefits lasting long-term. Single sessions helped only briefly, and mobilisation alone showed no clear pain benefit.
Why it matters
This nuanced result shows manual therapy isn't one uniform treatment. Some approaches, like thoracic manipulation and structured courses of cervical manipulation, have strong evidence behind them, while others show more limited benefit.
Why we included it
It illustrates why manual therapy shouldn't be treated as one interchangeable technique. Matching the specific method, whether thoracic manipulation or a course of cervical treatment, to the evidence produces better outcomes than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
The review compared manipulation and mobilisation techniques, including thoracic manipulation and single or multiple sessions of cervical manipulation, against inactive controls and medication, across trials covering acute, subacute and longer-term neck pain.
What did they find?
Thoracic manipulation gave the clearest benefit, producing large short-term gains in pain and function for acute neck pain. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation beat medication on pain and function, with benefits lasting long-term. Single sessions helped only briefly, and mobilisation alone showed no clear pain benefit.
Why it matters
This nuanced result shows manual therapy isn't one uniform treatment. Some approaches, like thoracic manipulation and structured courses of cervical manipulation, have strong evidence behind them, while others show more limited benefit.
Why we included it
It illustrates why manual therapy shouldn't be treated as one interchangeable technique. Matching the specific method, whether thoracic manipulation or a course of cervical treatment, to the evidence produces better outcomes than a one-size-fits-all approach.