Lumbar radiculopathy causes lower back and lower extremity pain that may be managed with neural mobilization (NM) techniques. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of NM in alleviating pain and reducing disability in patients with lumbar radiculopathy. We hypothesized that NM would reduce pain and improve disability in the lumbar radiculopathy population, leveraging the statistical power of multiple studies. Electronic databases from their inception up to October 2023 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored the impact of NM on lumbar radiculopathy. Our primary outcome measure was the alteration in pain intensity, while the secondary one was the improvement of disability, standardized using Hedges’ g. To combine the data, we employed a random-effects model. A total of 20 RCTs comprising 877 participants were included. NM yielded a significant reduction in pain intensity (Hedges’ g = −1.097, 95% CI = −1.482 to −0.712, p < 0.001, $I^2$= 85.338%). Subgroup analyses indicated that NM effectively reduced pain, whether employed alone or in conjunction with other treatments. Furthermore, NM significantly alleviated disability, with a notable effect size (Hedges’ g = −0.964, 95% CI = −1.475 to −0.453, p < 0.001, $I^2$ = 88.550%), particularly in chronic cases. The findings provide valuable insights for clinicians seeking evidence-based interventions for this patient population. This study has limitations, including heterogeneity, potential publication bias, varied causal factors in lumbar radiculopathy, overall study quality, and the inability to explore the impact of neural pathology on NM treatment effectiveness, suggesting opportunities for future research improvements.

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is one of the most common etiologies of knee pain and might be relieved with lumbopelvic manipulation (LPM). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of LPM on pain reduction in patients with PFPS. Electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of LPM on PFPS. The primary outcome was the change in visual analog or numeric rating scale scores assessing pain. Ten studies comprising 346 participants were included. Significant pain reduction was noted in the LPM group (Hedges’ g = −0.706, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.197 to −0.214, p = 0.005, $I^2$ = 79.624%) compared with the control group. Moreover, pain relief was more pronounced when LPM was combined with other physical therapies (Hedges’ g = −0.701, 95% CI = −1.386 to −0.017, p = 0.045, $I^2$ = 73.537%). No adverse events were reported during the LPM. The LPM appears to be a safe and effective adjuvant therapy for pain reduction in patients with PFPS. Clinicians should consider adding LPM to other physical therapies (e.g., quadriceps muscle strengthening) during the management of these patients.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of core-inclusive physical training, either performed alone or combined with additional physical conditioning, on clubhead speed (CHS) in healthy golfers and to compare golf-specific swing-simulated core training (GSCT) with non-GSCT. Six primary electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro) and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2026 for controlled trials. Continuous CHS outcomes were pooled using random-effects models as Hedges’ g. Nine trials (220 golfers) were analyzed. Overall core-inclusive physical training showed a small, statistically significant effect on CHS (Hedges’ g = 0.290, 95% CI: 0.031 to 0.549, p = 0.028; I² = 0.000%). Subgroup analysis indicated that interventions incorporating GSCT showed a numerically larger effect (Hedges’ g = 0.451, 95% CI: 0.073 to 0.830, p = 0.020) than non-GSCT (Hedges’ g = 0.148, 95% CI: −0.208 to 0.503, p = 0.416). However, meta-regression for between-subgroup differences did not reach statistical significance (Q = 1.31, p = 0.252). Certainty of evidence according to the GRADE framework was rated as low for overall CHS and very low for the GSCT subgroup training. In conclusion, conditioning practitioners may implement comprehensive core-inclusive physical training to enhance CHS, while considering GSCT as a promising yet exploratory strategy pending confirmation from larger randomized trials.

Eccentric cycling generates greater mechanical output with lower muscle activation and metabolic demand than concentric cycling. However, eccentric cycling intensity is commonly prescribed based on concentric cycling workloads, which may not provide comparable neuromuscular loading between cycling modes. The eccentric intensity required to match muscle activation during a clinically relevant concentric workload and its frequency-domain surface electromyographic (sEMG) characteristics remain unclear. This pilot study aimed to identify an eccentric cycling workload eliciting vastus lateralis (VL) muscle activation comparable to a submaximal concentric workload and to compare frequency-domain sEMG characteristics between cycling modes. Twenty-one healthy females completed concentric and eccentric incremental cycling exercise tests (CICET and EICET). VL sEMG was recorded throughout both tests. The workload closest to 70% of concentric peak power output (PPO) served as the reference, and the eccentric workload producing the closest normalized root mean square (RMS) amplitude was identified as the muscle activation-matched workload. RMS, median frequency (MDF), and normalized MDF slope (NMDF slope) were analyzed. A muscle activation-matched eccentric workload was successfully identified. This workload was significantly higher than the concentric reference workload (p < 0.001), while normalized mean RMS was comparable between conditions. EICET showed significantly higher MDF at the initial and final stages and a significantly less negative NMDF slope than CICET. Preliminary evidence suggests that muscle activation-matched eccentric cycling requires 1.69 times the power output of concentric cycling, based on the ratio of group means, while inducing less neuromuscular fatigue. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.