Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of neural mobilization technique with conservative treatment on pain intensity, cervical range of motion, and disability. Methods: It was a randomized clinical trial; data was collected from Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Eighty-eight patients fulfilling the sample selection criteria were randomly assigned into group 1 (neural mobilization) and group 2 (conventional treatment). Pain intensity was measured on a numeric pain rating scale, range of motion with an inclinometer, and functional status with neck disability index (NDI). Data were analyzed using SPSS, repeated measure ANOVA for cervical ranges and the Friedman test for NPRS and NDI were used for within-group analysis. Independent samples t-test for cervical ranges and Mann-Whitney U test for NPRS and NDI were used for between-group comparisons. Results: There was a significant improvement in pain, disability, and cervical range of motion after the treatment in both groups compared to the pre-treatment status (p < 0.001), and when both groups were compared neural mobilization was more effective than conventional treatment in reducing pain and neck disability (p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference present in the mean score of cervical range of motion between both groups. (p>0.05). Conclusions: The present study concluded that both neural mobilization and conservative treatment were effective as an exercise program for patients with cervical radiculopathy, however, neural mobilization was more effective in reducing pain and neck disability in cervical radiculopathy. Trial registration: RCT20190325043109N1.

Purpose. Cervical radiculopathy is disorder of cervical spinal nerve root affecting large number of population. Previously many studies are conducted to design suitable protocol for management of this disorder, but they lack in quality. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of neural mobilization and cervical isometrics on health‐related quality of life and deep flexors endurance in cervical radiculopathy. Methods. A double‐blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. Eighty‐eight patients within the age range of 35‐50 years were included in the study after taking their consent. In the experimental group (n = 44), median nerve mobilization was applied along with cervical isometric exercises. The control group (n = 44) performed cervical isometric exercises alone. Muscle endurance was measured by craniocervical flexion test and quality of life on 36 items short form health survey SF‐36 scale. Measurements were taken at baseline, at 2^nd week, and at 4^th week. For missing data, intention‐to‐treat analysis was used. Results. Within‐group comparison with Friedman test showed a significant difference between pre, mid, and posttreatment scores on craniocervical flexion test and in all domains of SF 36 in both groups. While between‐group comparison with Mann–Whitney U test showed all variables were similar at baseline but after 4 weeks there was a statistically significant improvement in craniocervical flexion test scores and all domains of SF 36 in the experimental group. But domain of pain showed mean rank of 49.43 after 4 weeks in the experimental group and 39.57 in the control group with p = 0.065 and d = 0.579, while for all the other 7 domains values were p < .05 and d > 0.25. Conclusion. Neural mobilization combined with cervical isometrics shows significant effects in improving quality of life and deep flexors endurance in patients with cervical radiculopathy than cervical isometrics alone.

Background: Cervical Radiculopathy (CR) is a disorder of the spinal nerve roots that is largely caused by space occupying lesion which can lead to nerve root inflammation and patient usually presents with radiating pain in his/her upper extremity known as cervical radiculopathy. The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of neural mobilization technique with conservative treatment on pain intensity, range of motion and disability.Methods: It was a double blinded randomized clinical trial; data was collected from Mayo Hospital, Lahore through convenience sampling technique. After taking consent from the patients, the patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected and randomized blindly and assigned through computer generated random number into two groups i.e. group 1 (neural mobilization), group 2 (conventional treatment). Pain intensity was measured on Numeric pain rating scale, range of motion measured with inclinometer and functional status with neck disability index (NDI). Data was analyzed using SPSS and difference in improvement before, after 02 and 04 weeks was noted and compared. Results: There was significant improvement in pain relief, neck disability and cervical ranges after the treatment in both groups compared to the pre-treatment status (p < 0.00) and when neural mobilization was compared , it was more effective technique than conventional treatment in reducing pain and neck disability (p < 0.00). But there was not statistical difference in mean score of cervical range of motion (p>0.05)Conclusions: The present study concluded that both neural mobilization and conservative treatment were effective as an exercise program for patient with cervical radiculopathy, however neural mobilization was more effective in reducing pain and neck disability in cervical radiculopathy.Trial registration: RCT20190325043109N1