Kanlayanaphotporn
[43]
|
83
|
- Clinically determined mobilization - Random mobilization
|
1.9 ± 4.1 −0.7 ± 4.5
|
1.8 ± 6.3 0.8 ± 4.6
|
- 0.3 ± 6.3 1.2 ± 4.9
|
0.8 ± 4.8 1.3 ± 4.1
|
0.5 ± 5.5 0.6 ± 6.9
|
1.1 ± 4.2 0.8 ± 6.0
|
The preferred mobilization group showed an increased flexion/extension compared to random mobilization group.
|
|
Yes and yes
|
Whittingham
[40]
|
83
|
- SMT upper cervical - Sham (deactivated instrument)
|
-
|
-
|
Gr. 1=39° ± 1.1 Gr. 2=38° ± 1.4
|
Gr. 1=38° ± 1.3 Gr. 2=36° ± 1.2
|
Gr. 1=56° ± 1.4 Gr. 2=57° ± 1.5
|
Gr. 1=54° ± 1.6 Gr. 2=54° ± 1.6
|
SMT increase significantly ROM
|
Those are given baseline values. ROM values immediately after treatment. Effect is observed on weeks 3, 6, 9 and 12.
|
Yes and yes
|
Krauss
[42]
|
77
|
- Thoracic SMT - Nothing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
8.23 (SD=7.41) −0.1 (SD=2.33)
|
7.09 (SD=5.83) −0.6 (SD=3.66)
|
Cervical rotation ROM is improved following SMT
|
|
Yes and yes
|
Martinez Segura
[37]
|
77
|
- SMT (C3-C5) - Sham neck mobilization
|
7 (Cohen’s d=5) 1.5 (Cohen’s d=2.5)
|
8 (Cohen’s d=7) 1.4 (Cohen’s d=3.3)
|
5 (Cohen’s d=4) 0.8 (Cohen’s d=1.6)
|
5 (Cohen’s d=4) 0.8 (Cohen’s d=1.5)
|
10 (Cohen’s d=5) 0.4 (Cohen’s d=1.5)
|
9 (Cohen’s d=5) 0.3 (Cohen’s d=0.8)
|
SMT was more effective than control mobilization on ROM. Large effect sizes.
|
|
Yes and yes
|
Mc Clatchie
[38]
|
69
|
- Mobilization (cervical) - Sham (same mobilization position but without external force)
|
−1.2 ± 6.5 −1.4 ± 5.3
|
0.8 ± 5.5 −0.5 ± 5.5
|
−0.7 ± 5.2 −0.1 ± 5.3
|
−0.4 ± 4.1 0.3 ± 4.4
|
1.1 ± 4.4 −0.4 ± 5.9
|
1.3 ± 6.6 - 0.3 ± 4.9
|
No significant difference
|
|
Not tested
|
Cassidy
[36]
|
69
|
- SMT(cervical) (n=52) - Mobilization (cervical) (n=48)
|
5.1 (SD 8.3) 3.9 (SD 9.4)
|
3.1 (SD 7.8) 1.3 (SD 7.5)
|
3.4 (SD 7.5) 2.0 (SD 5.2)
|
4.3 (SD 7.0) 3.0 (SD 4.7)
|
5.0 (SD 9.0) 4.2 (SD 9.0)
|
3.6 (SD 7.0) 2.4 (SD 6.4)
|
Both treatments increase ROM to similar degree.
|
|
Yes and no
|
Kanlayanaphotporn
[44]
|
67
|
- Post/ant (PA) cervical mobilization - random mobilization (PA, right or left)
|
1.4 (SD 5.2) −0.4 (SD 7.6)
|
1.8 (SD 5.4) −0.4 (SD 5.9)
|
−0.2 (SD 4.0) 0.6 (SD 4.1)
|
0.9 (SD 4.2) 1.5 (SD 7.8)
|
1.2 (SD 5.9) 1.2 (SD 6.1)
|
2.7 (SD 5.3) 2.0 (SD 5.8)
|
No significant effect on ROM
|
|
Yes and no
|
Tuttle
[41]
|
67
|
- PA cervical mobilization at symptomatic level - Placebo (PA mobilization but asymptomatic side)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Nothing (lying down)
|
* initial values flexion/extension ROM =119° (SD-17)
|
* initial values flexion/extension ROM=119° (SD-17)
|
* initial values lateral flexion ROM=93° (SD-12)
|
* initial values lateral flexion ROM=93° (SD-12)
|
* initial values rotation ROM=93° (SD-12)
|
* initial values rotation ROM=93° (SD-12)
|
No significant ROM increase
|
* No differences. pre/post treatment values are given but only shown in a graph.
|
Not tested
|
|
|
Passmore
[39] |
50 |
- SMT(C1-C2) - Nothing (wait 5’) |
No difference No difference |
No difference No difference |
No difference No difference |
No difference No difference |
3.75 No difference |
- |
SMT increases cervical active ROM |
|
Not tested |