Neural mobilization is a treatment modality used in relation to pathologies of the nervous system. It has been suggested that neural mobilization is an effective treatment modality, although support of this suggestion is primarily anecdotal. The purpose of this paper was to provide a systematic review of the literature pertaining to the therapeutic efficacy of neural mobilization. A search to identify randomized controlled trials investigating neural mobilization was conducted using the key words neural mobilisation/mobilization, nerve mobilisation/mobilization, neural manipulative physical therapy, physical therapy, neural/nerve glide, nerve glide exercises, nerve/neural treatment, nerve/neural stretching, neurodynamics, and nerve/neural physiotherapy. The titles and abstracts of the papers identified were reviewed to select papers specifically detailing neural mobilization as a treatment modality. The PEDro scale, a systematic tool used to critique RCTs and grade methodological quality, was used to assess these trials. Methodological assessment allowed an analysis of research investigating therapeutic efficacy of neural mobilization. Ten randomized clinical trials (discussed in 11 retrieved articles) were identified that discussed the therapeutic effect of neural mobilization. This review highlights the lack in quantity and quality of the available research. Qualitative analysis of these studies revealed that there is only limited evidence to support the use of neural mobilization. Future research needs to re-examine the application of neural mobilization with use of more homogeneous study designs and pathologies; in addition, it should standardize the neural mobilization interventions used in the study.

The prevalence of imaged pathology in primary care has received little attention and the relevance of identified pathology to symptoms remains unclear. This paper reports the prevalence of imaged pathology and the association between pathology and response to diagnostic blocks into the subacromial bursa (SAB), acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) and glenohumeral joint (GHJ).

Physical activity (PA) is a component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, life-long engagement in PA is required to maintain benefits gained. Wearable PA monitoring devices (WPAM) are thought to increase PA. There appear to be no reviews which investigate the effect of WPAM in cardiac populations. We firstly aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials within the cardiac population that investigated the effect WPAM had through the maintenance phase of CR. We specifically examined the effect on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), amount and intensity of daily PA, and sedentary time. Secondly, we aimed to collate outcome measures reported, reasons for drop out, adverse events, and psychological impact from utilising a WPAM. A systematic search (up to January 2019) of relevant databases was completed, followed by a narrative synthesis, meta-analysis and qualitative analysis. Nine studies involving 1,352 participants were included. CRF was improved to a greater extent in participants using WPAM with exercise prescription or advice compared with controls (MD 1.65 mL/kg/min;95% confidence interval [CI; 0.64–2.66]; p = 0.001; I2 = 0%). There was no significant between group difference in six-minute walk test distance. In 70% of studies, step count was greater in participants using a WPAM with exercise prescription or advice, however the overall effect was not significant (SMD 0.45;95% [CI; − 0.17-1.07] p = 0.15; I2 = 81%). A sensitivity analysis resulted in significantly greater step counts in participants using a WPAM with exercise prescription or advice and reduced the heterogeneity from 81 to 0% (SMD 0.78;95% [CI;0.54–1.02]; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Three out of four studies reporting on intensity, found significantly increased time spent in moderate and moderate-vigorous intensity PA. No difference between groups was found for sedentary time. Three of six studies reported improved psychological benefits. No cardiac adverse events related to physical activity were reported and 62% of non-cardiac adverse events were primarily musculoskeletal injuries. Reasons for dropping out included medical conditions, lack of motivation, loss of interest, and technical difficulties. Our meta-analysis showed WPAM with exercise prescription or advice are superior to no device in improving CRF in the maintenance phase of CR and no cardiac adverse events were reported with WPAM use. Our qualitative analysis showed evidence in favour of WPAM with exercise prescription or advice for both CRF and step count. WPAM with exercise prescription or advice did not change sedentary time. Psychological health and exercise intensity may potentially be enhanced by WPAM with exercise prescription or advice, however further research would strengthen this conclusion. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019106591.