Heba M Elfeky | Search PubMed

PubMed2026

Effect of Global Postural Re-Education in Individuals With Text Neck Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of Global Postural Re-Education (GPR) versus conventional physical therapy in text neck syndrome (TNS). A prospective, single-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial design was used. METHODS: Sixty participants with TNS (aged 18-40 years) were randomly assigned to either conventional treatment or GPR plus conventional treatment. Both groups received supervised therapy for three sessions per week over 4 weeks. Outcome measures included craniovertebral and shoulder angles assessed by photogrammetry, pain intensity via Visual Analog Scale, and Cervical Range of Motion via a smartphone application (Clinometer). Measured before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Within-group analyses showed significant improvements in pain and CROM in both groups (p < 0.001). However, the between-group analysis revealed no superiority of GPR for pain or CROM (p > 0.05). In contrast, GPR demonstrated statistically significant superiority in postural correction, with greater improvements in craniovertebral angle (MD: 2.14°; 95% CI: 0.69-3.59; p = 0.005) and shoulder angle (MD: 3.2°; 95% CI: 0.33-6.07; p = 0.03), exceeding MCID thresholds and indicating clinically meaningful benefits. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the longer session duration in the GPR group. DISCUSSION: Incorporating Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) into conventional treatment provided significant additional benefits for postural parameters (craniovertebral and shoulder angles) in individuals with text neck syndrome. However, GPR demonstrated no added superiority over conventional treatment alone regarding pain intensity and cervical range of motion outcomes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Adding Rib Mobilization to Diaphragm Release Techniques in Patients With Non-Specific Neck Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific neck pain (NSNP) is a frequent issue that can negatively affect both mobility and function. Recently, there has been growing interest in newer therapeutic approaches, including rib mobilization and diaphragm release techniques, as potential ways to address NSNP and support better outcomes for those affected. PURPOSE: To find out the immediate effects of how (DRT) combined with (RMT) affects the level of pain and the extent to which patients' functional abilities are improved in cases of NSNP. METHODS: For this prospective RCT, 96 participants aged 20 to 45 years were randomly assigned to one of three equal groups based on their pain score (VAS). Group B engaged in (DRT) for 40 minutes, three times weekly for 8 weeks, in contrast to Group A, which got both RMT combined with DRT. Group C (active control) received advice and some exercises. Measurements were collected before and after the intervention; the primary outcomes included pain severity, evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS); active neck range of motion (ROM), measured with a cervical range of motion (CROM) device; and neck flexion endurance. Additionally, the secondary outcome of neck-related disability was assessed using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was identified among the three groups at baseline; nevertheless, a treatment effect emerged after 8 weeks (p = 0.001 and f-value = 4.15, ƞ2 = 0.306). A statistically significant time-treatment interaction was seen when comparing the pre- and post-treatment periods in groups A and B (p = 0.001, f-value = 3.16, ƞ2 = 0.251). CONCLUSION: The addition of rib mobilization to diaphragm release techniques in patients with non-specific neck pain resulted in statistically significant improvements in pain intensity, cervical flexion, right lateral rotation, left lateral rotation, right rotation, and neck flexor endurance, with moderate to large effect sizes for pain reduction and cervical motion. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups for cervical extension, left rotation, or the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and only a marginal clinical improvement in NDI was noted in Group A. The observed benefits in the combined intervention group may not be attributable solely to rib mobilization. The increased treatment complexity and greater therapist interaction inherent in the combined approach could also have influenced the outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT07133646.

Humans↗