M echanical neck pain is a significant societal burden and may include symptoms in the neck and upper extremity. It has been reported that the lifetime and point prevalence of neck pain are almost as high as those of low back pain. 26 A systematic review of the literature has indicated that the 1-year prevalence of neck pain ranges between 16.7% and 75.1% (mean, 37.2%). 14 Additionally, mechanical neck pain results in substantial disability and costs. 5,11,24 Determining the most appropriate intervention for individuals with neck pain remains a priority for researchers. Physical therapy is usually the first management approach for patients with mechanical, idiopathic, insidious neck pain, and manual therapy is often the preferred intervention. 8 Although a number of randomized controlled trials support the use of manual therapy directed at the cervical spine in patients with neck pain, 6,13,20,27,30 a recent Cochrane review concluded that there is only low-quality evidence to suggest that cervical thrust manipulation may provide T T STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. T T OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cervical spine thrust manipulation to that of Kinesio Taping applied to the neck in individuals with mechanical neck pain, using self-reported pain and disability and cervical range of motion as measures. T T BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of cervical manipulation has received considerable attention in the literature. However, because some patients cannot tolerate cervical thrust manipulation, alternative therapeutic options should be investigated. T T METHODS: Eighty patients (36 women) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the manipulation group, which received 2 cervical thrust manipulations, and the tape group, which received Kinesio Taping applied to the neck. Neck pain (11-point numeric pain rating scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), and cervical-range-of-motion data were collected at baseline and 1 week after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patients. Mixed-model analyses of variance were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction. T T RESULTS: No significant group-by-time interactions were found for pain (F = 1.892, P = .447) or disability (F = 0.115, P = .736). The group-by-time interaction was statistically significant for right (F = 7.317, P = .008) and left (F = 9.525, P = .003) cervical rotation range of motion, with the patients who received the cervical thrust manipulation having experienced greater improvement in cervi-cal rotation than those treated with Kinesio Tape (P<.01). No significant group-by-time interactions were found for cervical spine range of motion for flexion (F = 0.944, P = .334), extension (F = 0.122, P = .728), and right (F = 0.220, P = .650) and left (F = 0.389, P = .535) lateral flexion. T T CONCLUSION: Patients with mechanical neck pain who re...