Study Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Objectives To determine the efficacy of neural mobilization (NM) for musculoskeletal conditions with a neuropathic component. Background Neural mobilization, or neurodynamics, is a movement-based intervention aimed at restoring the homeostasis in and around the nervous system. The current level of evidence for NM is largely unknown. Methods A database search for randomized trials investigating the effect of NM on neuromusculoskeletal conditions was conducted, using standard methods for article identification, selection, and quality appraisal. Where possible, studies were pooled for meta-analysis, with pain, disability, and function as the primary outcomes. Results Forty studies were included in this review, of which 17 had a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses could only be performed on self-reported outcomes. For chronic low back pain, disability (Oswestry Disability Questionnaire [0-50]: mean difference, -9.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.50, -4.01; P<.001) and pain (intensity [0-10]: mean difference, -1.78; 95% CI: -2.55, -1.01; P<.001) improved following NM. For chronic neck-arm pain, pain improved (intensity: mean difference, -1.89; 95% CI: -3.14, -0.64; P<.001) following NM. For most of the clinical outcomes in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome, NM was not effective (P>.11) but showed some positive neurophysiological effects (eg, reduced intraneural edema). Due to a scarcity of studies or conflicting results, the effect of NM remains uncertain for various conditions, such as postoperative low back pain, cubital tunnel syndrome, and lateral epicondylalgia. Conclusion This review reveals benefits of NM for back and neck pain, but the effect of NM on other conditions remains unclear. Due to the limited evidence and varying methodological quality, conclusions may change over time. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(9):593-615. Epub 13 Jul 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7117.

Purpose: Neural mobilization (NM) is often used to treat nerve-related conditions, and its use is reasonable with nerve-related neck and arm pain (NNAP). The aims of this study were to establish the effect of NM on the pain, function, and quality of life (QOL) of patients with NNAP and to establish whether high catastrophizing and neuropathic pain influence treatment outcomes. Method: A randomized controlled trial compared a usual-care (UC; n = 26) group, who received cervical and thoracic mobilization, exercises, and advice, with an intervention (UCNM; n = 60) group, who received the same treatment but with the addition of NM. Soft tissue mobilization along the tract of the nerve was used as the NM technique. The primary outcomes were pain intensity (rated on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale), function (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and QOL (EuroQol-5D) at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary outcomes were the presence of neuropathic pain (using the Neuropathic Diagnostic Questionnaire) and catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophising Scale). Results: Both groups improved in terms of pain, function, and QOL over the 12-month period ( p < 0.05). No between-groups differences were found at 12 months, but the UCNM group had significantly less pain at 6 months ( p = 0.03). Patients who still presented with neuropathic pain ( p < 0.001) and high pain catastrophizing ( p = 0.02) at 6- and 12-mo follow-ups had more pain. Conclusions: Both groups had similar improvements in function and QOL at 12-month follow-up. The UCNM group had significantly less pain at 6-month follow-up and a lower mean pain rating at 12-month follow-up, although the difference between groups was not significant. Neuropathic pain is common among this population and, where it persisted, patients had more pain and functional limitations at 12-mo follow-up.

Musculoskeletal disorders were ranked as the second largest contributor to disability worldwide in a study on the global burden of disease. Low back pain and neck pain contributed to 70% of disability in this comprehensive population-based study. Low back pain and neck pain are multifactorial, with heterogeneous populations. It has been proposed that targeting subgroups of patients may result in better treatment outcomes. Neck pain associated with upper limb pain is prevalent. These patients are more disabled than patients with neck pain alone. Similarly, low back pain with leg pain is a common phenomenon and is acknowledged as a predictor for chronicity.Neuropathic pain is often associated with musculoskeletal complaints including low back pain, whiplash associated disorders (WAD) and acute or chronic radiculopathy, and can be a feature of syndromes such as cervico-brachial pain syndrome. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, neuropathic pain can be described as "pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system." Leg pain associated with back pain can be caused by central sensitization, denervation, nerve sensitization or somatically referred pain. In patients with WAD, neck pain is the most common symptom, but upper limb pain, weakness, paraesthesia and anesthesia are often present. Other conditions in which neural tissue is thought to contribute to the clinical picture are, for instance, lateral epicondalalgia and carpal tunnel syndrome.Management strategies for back pain and neck pain are often multimodal. However, the evidence for effective treatment of nerve related pain is lacking. Neural mobilizations are often used to affect the neural structures in conditions with signs of neural involvement or neural mechano-sensitivity. Neural mobilizations are defined as interventions aimed at affecting the neural structures or surrounding tissue (interface) directly or indirectly through manual techniques or exercise. Neural mobilizations have been studied in various populations such as low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, lateral epicondalalgia and cervico-brachial pain. Neural mobilization techniques studied include cervical lateral glides for cervico-brachial pain, nerve gliding exercises for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical lateral glides for lateral epicondalalgia and the slump as a neural mobilization technique in the treatment of low back pain. No specialized equipment is needed in the performance of neural mobilization techniques, which contributes to its popularity.Neural mobilization is said to affect the axoplasmic flow, movement of the nerve and its connective tissue and the circulation of the nerve by alteration of the pressure in the nervous system and dispersion of intraneural oedema. Neural mobilization decreases the excitability of dorsal horn cells. Neural mobilizations can be performed in various ways using passive movement, manual mobilization of the nerve or interface, and exercise. The aim of neural mobilization is to restore ...

BackgroundNeck pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint and is often associated with shoulder or arm pain. There is a paucity of information on effective treatment for neck and arm pain, such as radiculopathy or cervico-brachial pain. Guidelines recommend neck mobilisation/ manipulation, exercises and advice as the treatment for neck pain, and neck and arm pain. There are a few studies that have used neural mobilisation as the treatment for cervico-brachial pain. Although results seem promising the studies have small sample sizes that make it difficult to draw definite conclusions.MethodsA randomised controlled trial will be used to establish the effect of neural mobilisation on the pain, function and quality of life of patients with cervico-brachial pain. Patients will be recruited in four physiotherapy private practices and randomly assigned to usual care or usual care plus neural mobilisation.DiscussionIn clinical practice neural mobilisations is commonly used for cervico-brachial pain. Although study outcomes seem promising, most studies have small participant numbers. Targeting the neural structures as part of the management plan for a subgroup of patients with nerve mechano-sensitivity seems feasible. Patients with neuropathic pain and psychosocial risk factors such as catastrophising, respond poorly to treatment. Although a recent study found these patients less likely to respond to neural mobilisation, the current study will be able to assess whether neural mobilisation has any added benefit compared to usual care. The study will contribute to the knowledge base of treatment of patients with cervico-brachial pain. The findings of the study will be published in an appropriate journal.Trial registrationTrial registration Number: PACTR201303000500157.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-419) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use. Design Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4th February 2021. Participants Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition. Intervention Spinal manipulation and mobilisation Outcome measures Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored. Method Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach. Results Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for ‘no significant effect’ of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition. Conclusion Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted.