Effectiveness of the McKenzie-based exercises in improving pain, disability, and cervical range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Héctor García-López, Álvaro Morales-Quintana, Esteban Obrero-Gaitán et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed McKenzie-based exercise interventions for adults with chronic nonspecific neck pain, using randomized controlled trials comparing them with placebo, usual care, or other interventions. Eight studies involving 389 participants were included. Low-quality evidence favored the McKenzie Method for pain reduction (SMD =-0.57; 95% CI: -1.1 to -0.04; p = .034; I 2 = 31.5%) and disability (SMD =-0.43; 95% CI: -0.90 to -0.01; p = .047; I 2 = 19.5%). Active cervical extension, flexion, and rotation improved, but lateral flexion did not show a significant improvement.
Key findings
- Pain favored McKenzie-based interventions: SMD =-0.57; 95% CI: -1.1 to -0.04; p = .034; I 2 = 31.5%.
- Disability favored McKenzie-based interventions: SMD =-0.43; 95% CI: -0.90 to -0.01; p = .047; I 2 = 19.5%.
- Active cervical extension, flexion, and rotation improved significantly; lateral flexion did not.
- Evidence was low quality, and reported effects were short-term; medium- or long-term outcomes were not reported.
Why it matters
The review suggests McKenzie-based exercises may offer short-term improvements in pain, disability, and several measures of cervical movement for chronic nonspecific neck pain. However, low certainty and the absence of reported medium- or long-term outcomes limit confidence about the size and persistence of benefit. These findings help frame the intervention as a possible option rather than establishing durable effectiveness.
What to keep in mind
The evidence was rated low quality, disability results showed publication bias, and the retained studies did not report medium- or long-term outcomes.