English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:\udNeck  pain  is  a  common  problem  within  our  society.  Upper  trapezius  and  the levator  scapulae  are  the  most  common  postural  muscles  that  tends to  get  shorten  leading  to restricted neck mobility. If these group of muscles are treated it may provide with best results. There is lack of evidence to allow conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of Muscle energy  technique  (MET)  when  compared  with  stretching  exercises  for  relieving  mechanical neck pain. It would be interesting to study if these two techniques yield comparable outcomes \udand if one technique is superior to the next which should be the alternate choice of therapy\udObjective:\udTo  evaluate  the  comparative  effectiveness \udof  Muscle  energy  technique  and  static stretching  on  pain  and  active  cervical  range  of  motion  (ROM)  in  subacute  mechanical  neck pain\udSubjects  and  methods:\ud45  patients  with  subacute  mechanical  neck  pain  were  randomly \udassigned to receive Muscle Energy Technique plus conventional physiotherapy (group 1, n = 15),  static  stretching  plus  conventional  exercise  program  (group  2,  n  =  15)  and  conventional physiotherapy only (group 3,  n = 15).\udIntervention:\udGroup  1  received  6  sessions  of  Muscle  Energy  Technique  and  10  sessions  of \udconventional  physiotherapy.  Group  2 received  6  sessions  of  static  stretching  and  10  sessions of  conventional  physiotherapy.  Group  3  received  10  sessions  of  conventional  physiotherapy. \udAll groups were treated for 2 weeks.Outcome  measures:Pain  intensity  on  100mm  VAS,  active  cervical  lateral  flexion  range  of motion, active cervical rotation range of motion. \udResults:\udPaired  t-test  was  used  for  within  group  analysis.  ANOVA  followed  by  post  hoc analysis  was  employed  for  between  group  comparisons.  No  significant  difference  was  found in  any  of  the  outcome  measure  between  MET  and  static  stretching  groups  (p  >  0.05)  while both  were  found  to  be  significantly  better  than  the  conventional  exercise  group  (p  <  0.05) between the 3 groups. Statistically significant improvements were found in all the 3 groups for all the outcome measures (p < 0.05). \udConclusion:\udThis   study   concluded   that   both   the   treatment   techniques,   muscle   energy \udtechnique and static stretching were effective in alleviating the mechanical neck pain in terms \udof  decreasing  pain  intensity  and  increasing  active  cervical  range  of  motion  as  there  was  no \udsignificant  difference  between  the  two  groups,  however  MET  was  superior  than  static stretching in decreasing pain intensity and increasing active cervical range of motio

Comparative Effectiveness of Muscle Energy Technique and Static Stretching for Treatment of Subacute Mechanical Neck Pain