Shows improved cervical range of motion in university students with neck pain, suggesting manual therapy's potential benefits.
This study aimed to investigate the immediate effects of cervical and thoracic mobilization and manipulation on cervical range of motion (ROM) and static balance in university students with neck and shoulder pain, and to examine the clinical effectiveness of conservative manual therapy. Seventeen university students (8 males and 9 females) residing in D city who reported neck and shoulder pain based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were recruited. A single session intervention consisting of cervical and thoracic mobilization and high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation was applied. Cervical ROM including flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left rotation was measured using a goniometer, while static balance was assessed using a Foot Checker system to quantify left right and anterior posterior weight distribution ratios. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 with paired and independent t tests, and the level of significance was set at p<.05. The results showed significant increases in cervical flexion in both males (p<.05) and females (p<.001). Cervical extension and bilateral rotation showed significant improvements only in females (p<.05, p<.01), whereas no significant differences were observed in lateral flexion (p>.05). No statistically significant changes were found in static balance (p>.05). Although a tendency toward more symmetrical weight distribution was observed after the intervention, this change was not statistically significant and should be interpreted with caution. These findings suggest that cervical and thoracic mobilization combined with manipulation may have immediate positive effects on cervical ROM. However, the effect on static balance was limited, and no significant improvement was confirmed. Considering the limitations of a small sample size and single session intervention, further studies with larger samples and longer intervention periods are required to verify the clinical effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: