A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Mulligan Mobilization with Movement on Pain, Range of Motion, Function, and Flexibility in Patients with Sciatica.
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Mulligan Mobilization with Movement on Pain, Range of Motion, Function, and Flexibility in Patients with Sciatica.","authors":"Hisham Hussein, Mohamed Atteya, Aisha Ansari, Ehab Kamel","doi":"10.1177/10538135241301693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThe Mulligan techniques address lumbar disc lesions and related dysfunctions. However, the current body of evidence of its effectiveness remains limited.AimsTo assess the effectiveness of the Mulligan concept on pain alleviation, range of motion, function, and flexibility in patients with sciatica.MethodsThis meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials that applied Mulligan techniques to patients with sciatica and assessed outcomes such as pain, range of motion, function, or flexibility. We searched six electronic databases to identify the relevant trials. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment.ResultsA total of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. Three primary Mulligan techniques were performed: spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM), bent leg raise (BLR), and traction straight leg raise (TSLR). In this review, seven trials exhibited a high to moderate risk of bias, while the remaining trials demonstrated a low risk of bias. The analysis revealed that SMWLG could be beneficial in improving pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.82 to -0.33, p < .001) and function (SMD = -1.02, 95% CI = -1.87 to -0.17, p = .02). Additionally, BLR showed potential benefits in improving flexibility, particularly when combined with standard treatment (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.88, p < .001).ConclusionsSMWLG demonstrates greater improvements in pain and function compared to other Mulligan techniques in patients with sciatica. However, the limited number of trials and the overall low quality of the existing literature highlight the need for future high-quality research that encompasses all related Mulligan techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":19717,"journal":{"name":"NeuroRehabilitation","volume":"56 2","pages":"83-96"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NeuroRehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538135241301693","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundThe Mulligan techniques address lumbar disc lesions and related dysfunctions. However, the current body of evidence of its effectiveness remains limited.AimsTo assess the effectiveness of the Mulligan concept on pain alleviation, range of motion, function, and flexibility in patients with sciatica.MethodsThis meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials that applied Mulligan techniques to patients with sciatica and assessed outcomes such as pain, range of motion, function, or flexibility. We searched six electronic databases to identify the relevant trials. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment.ResultsA total of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. Three primary Mulligan techniques were performed: spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM), bent leg raise (BLR), and traction straight leg raise (TSLR). In this review, seven trials exhibited a high to moderate risk of bias, while the remaining trials demonstrated a low risk of bias. The analysis revealed that SMWLG could be beneficial in improving pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.82 to -0.33, p < .001) and function (SMD = -1.02, 95% CI = -1.87 to -0.17, p = .02). Additionally, BLR showed potential benefits in improving flexibility, particularly when combined with standard treatment (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.88, p < .001).ConclusionsSMWLG demonstrates greater improvements in pain and function compared to other Mulligan techniques in patients with sciatica. However, the limited number of trials and the overall low quality of the existing literature highlight the need for future high-quality research that encompasses all related Mulligan techniques.
期刊介绍:
NeuroRehabilitation, an international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal, publishes manuscripts focused on scientifically based, practical information relevant to all aspects of neurologic rehabilitation. We publish unsolicited papers detailing original work/research that covers the full life span and range of neurological disabilities including stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, neuromuscular disease and other neurological disorders.
We also publish thematically organized issues that focus on specific clinical disorders, types of therapy and age groups. Proposals for thematic issues and suggestions for issue editors are welcomed.