Background: Few studies have investigated the effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to other procedures. Sham procedures are generally more appropriate control than using no or usual treatments. Moreover, studies investigating the widespread hypoalgesic effects of MWM in patients with knee OA are lacking. The aim was to investigate the effect of MWM on function and pain in patients with knee OA compared to sham MWM. Methods: This is a randomized double-blind (patients and assessor) controlled trial. Forty adult patients with knee OA of grade II and above were recruited to receive either MWM treatment or sham MWM for the knee. The outcome measures included the following: a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, the pressure pain threshold (PPT) test, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index, the timed up and go (TUG) test, knee strength and knee range of motion (ROM). The measurements were taken at baseline, immediately after intervention and 2 days later. Results: Compared with sham MWM, MWM resulted in greater immediate improvement in pain [mean difference (95% CI): − 2.2 (− 2.8, − 1.6)], PPT at both the knee [176 (97, 254)] and shoulder [212 (136, 288)], TUG time [− 1.6 (− 2.1, − 1.1)], knee flexor strength [2.0 (1.3, 2.7)] and extensor strength [5.7 (4.1, 7.2)] and knee flexion ROM [12.8 (9.6, 15.9)] (all, p < 0.001) but not knee extension ROM [− 0.8 (− 1.6, 0.1)] (p = 0.067). After 2 days of intervention, patients who received MWM also demonstrated a greater improvement in pain [− 1.0 (− 1.8, − 0.1)], PPT at the shoulder [107 (40, 175)], TUG time [− 0.9 (− 1.4, − 0.4)], knee flexor strength [0.9 (0.2, 1.7)] and extensor strength [2.9 (2.1, 3.9)] and knee flexion ROM [8.3 (4.7, 11.9)] (all, p ≤ 0.026). However, WOMAC scores and knee extension ROM showed no evidence of change at any stage after intervention (p ≥ 0.067). Conclusions: MWM provided superior benefits over sham MWM in terms of local and widespread pain, physical function (walking), knee flexion and extension muscle strength and knee flexion ROM for at least 2 days in patients with knee OA. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02865252), registered on August 12, 2016.

Background: The role of autonomic nervous system (ANS) modulation in chronic neck pain remains elusive. Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (t-VNS) provides a novel, non-invasive means of potentially mitigating chronic neck pain. This study aimed to assess the effects of ANS modulation on heart rate variability (HRV), pain perception, and neck disability. Methods: In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 102 participants with chronic neck pain were randomly allocated to one of three groups: t-VNS plus standard-care physiotherapy (SC-PT), heart rate variability biofeedback (HRV-BF) with SC-PT, or SC-PT alone. Interventions were administered three times weekly for 6 weeks. The following outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks: HRV, the visual analog scale (VAS), the pressure pain threshold (PPT), and the neck disability index (NDI). Results: The t-VNS group exhibited significant improvements compared to the HRV-BF and SC-PT groups. Specifically, t-VNS increased the RR interval (mean difference [MD] = 35.0 ms; p = 0.037) and decreased the average heart rate (MD = −5.4 bpm; p = 0.039). Additionally, t-VNS reduced the VAS scores (versus HRV-BF: MD = −0.8 cm, p = 0.044; SC-PT: MD = −0.9 cm, p = 0.018), increased the PPT (versus HRV-BF: MD = 94.4 kPa, p < 0.001; SC-PT (MD = 56.2 kPa, p = 0.001)), and lowered the NDI scores (versus HRV-BF: MD = −4.0, p = 0.015; SC-PT: MD = −5.9, p < 0.001). Conclusions: t-VNS demonstrated superior effectiveness compared to HRV-BF and SC-PT in regulating HRV, alleviating pain, and enhancing functional capabilities in individuals with chronic neck pain.

Background: Spine pain conditions, such as low back pain (LBP) and neck pain, are prevalent musculoskeletal disorders. The autonomic nervous system (ANS) has been implicated as a potential contributor to pain. However, research investigating the impact of physiotherapy interventions on ANS function in patients with spinal pain disorders remains limited. Objective: This review aims to examine the influence of physiotherapy interventions on the ANS in patients with spinal pain conditions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify eligible randomized clinical trials. For meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to compare the effects of physiotherapy interventions on ANS outcomes to comparison interventions. Results: A total of 16 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 11 were eligible for meta-analysis. Nine studies focused on participants with LBP, while seven studies focused on neck pain. The included studies investigated a variety of physiotherapy interventions compared to various control interventions. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in ANS-related parameters between physiotherapy and comparison groups for LBP (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI: −0.10, 0.32; I2 = 55%) or neck pain (SMD = 0.09; 95% CI: – 0.29, 0.46; I2 = 74%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found no evidence that physiotherapy interventions induce ANS modulation compared to other interventions. Funding: None Registration: PROSPERO (registration no.: CRD42023460760)