The Effect of Mulligan Mobilization Technique in Older Adults with Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled, Double-Blind Study
Table 3
Comparing the gains of the participants in both groups.
TP group median (IQR)
TPMM group median (IQR)
VAS (0–10)
Rest
−3 (−6 to −3)
−4 (−6 to −2)
0.862
Activity
−5 (−5 to −4)
−6 (−6 to −3)
0.083
ROM
Cervical flexion
6.4 (4.2–6.9)
10.2 (8.3–12.4)
≤0.001
Cervical extension
5.3 (3.7–6.4)
8.4 (5.8–9.7)
≤0.001
Cervical lateral flexion
Right
6 (4.4–7.1)
9 (8.01–11.2)
0.004
Left
5 (3.5–6.8)
6 (5.4–8.2)
0.089
Cervical rotation
Right
3 (2.7–4.7)
7 (5.6–8.3)
0.527
Left
3 (2.9–4.5)
13 (10.5–15.6)
0.354
NDI (0–35 point)
−10 (−12 to −8)
−13 (−14 to −7)
0.335
TSK (17–68 point)
3 (4–6)
5 (4–8)
0.006
BDI
−8 (−11 to −4)
−7 (−10 to −4)
0.007
Quality of life (SF-36)
Physical component
4.5 (2.1–6.2)
5.9 (4.3–6.7)
0.002
Mental component
4.7 (3.2–10.43)
7.3 (5.25–9.82)
0.092
Total
10.5 (4.3–12.4)
16.1 (8.9–20.21)
0.002
TP: traditional physiotherapy, TPMM: traditional phyisotherapy + Mulligan mobilization, VAS: visual analog scale, ROM: range of motion, NDI: neck disability index, TSK: Tampa scale of kinesiophobia, BDI: Beck depression inventory, SF-36: Short Form-36. .
