Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 23, 2026
Warm Moxibustion and Scraping as a Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapy for Cervical Spondylosis Treatment
Published on: June 27, 2025
Effectiveness of Global Postural Re-education in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: Randomized Controlled
Paolo Pillastrini1, Fernanda de Lima E Sá Resende2, Federico Banchelli3
1P. Pillastrini, PT, MSc, Occupational Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neurological Sciences, University of Bologna, via P. Palagi 9-40138 Bologna, Italy. paolo.pillastrini@unibo.it.
Background:
Global postural re-education (GPR) has shown positive results for patients with musculoskeletal disorders, but no previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has investigated its effectiveness as the sole procedure for adult patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NP).
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of applying GPR compared with a manual therapy (MT) intervention to patients with chronic nonspecific NP.
Design:
An RCT was conducted.
Patients:
Ninety-four patients with chronic nonspecific NP (72 women and 22 men; average age=47.5 years, SD=11.3) were randomly assigned to receive either a GPR intervention or an MT intervention.
Outcome Measures:
Pain intensity (visual analog scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), cervical range of motion, and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia) were assessed.
Methods:
The experimental group received GPR, and the reference group received MT. Both groups received nine 60-minute-long sessions with one-to-one supervision from physical therapists as the care providers. All participants were asked to follow ergonomic advice and to perform home exercises. Measures were assessed before treatment, following treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up.
Results:
No important baseline differences were found between groups. The experimental group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in pain following treatment and in disability 6 months after the intervention compared with the reference group.
Limitations:
Randomization did not lead to completely homogeneous groups. It also was noted that the time spent integrating the movements practiced during the session into daily routines at the end of each session was requested only of participants in the GPR group and may have had an impact on patient adherence that contributed to a better outcome.
Conclusions:
The results suggest that GPR was more effective than MT for reducing pain after treatment and for reducing disability at 6-month follow-up in patients with chronic nonspecific NP.
More Related Videos
06:28Biomechanical Changes Related to Low Back Pain: An Innovative Tool for Movement Pattern Assessment and Treatment Evaluation in Rehabilitation
Published on: December 13, 2024
14:52Computerized Dynamic Posturography for Postural Control Assessment in Patients with Intermittent Claudication
Published on: December 11, 2013