To Study the Effects of Deep Neck Flexor Strengthening Exercises and Mckenzie Neck Exercises on Smart Phone Users Suffering From Neck Pain: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Smartphone has become an integral part of our lives, they generally have a small screen because of which it is more likely to induce a slouched posture creating a line of sight mostly below eye level, formulating an improper posture when used for a prolonged period of time, for example, forward head posture (FHP) leading to neck pain. The purpose of the study is to compare the effectiveness of Deep neck flexor strengthening exercises with that of McKenzie neck extension exercises on smartphone users suffering from neck pain. It is a comparative experimental study. This study included (N=40) subjects with neck pain within the age group of 25-45 years. They arerandomly assigned into 2 groups (Group A and B). Group A had 20 (N=20) subjects who are treated with Deep neck flexor strengthening exercises, Group B had 20 (N=20) who are treated with McKenzie neck extension exercises. The subjects were given intervention 5 days a week for 6 weeks. For within-group analysis Paired sample t-test was used and to analyze between-group variables Independent sample t-test was done. Between DNF and McK groups no significant difference was found in NDI(p<1.18 ) and SFMPQ(p <1.17) while all outcome measures showed a significant difference in both DNF and McK groups(p=0.00)within the groups The results indicated that although both the treatment techniques, DNF and McK are effective in alleviating the neck pain in Smartphone users in terms of decreasing pain intensity and increasing functional ability as there was a significant difference within the two groups, but there was no significant difference between the DNF and McK group in decreasing pain intensity, increasing functional ability

The McKenzie Method Is an Effective Rehabilitation Paradigm for Treating Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

“…This study is the first combined systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of the McKenzie MMDT in adult patients with neck pain. Since the last attempt at systematic review in 2014 on the effectiveness of the McKenzie MMDT for neck pain, numerous high-quality RCTs have been completed, including nine of the 11 studies included in this review [4,7,8,[11][12][13][14][15]20,21]. Based on the results of this study, the McKenzie MMDT can provide small but statistically significant improvements in pain, but not disability, in adult patients with neck pain as compared to control interventions.…”

“…A total of 1,955 articles were retrieved from PubMed, ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases on December 5, 2022, with 11 RCTs meeting the final selection criteria for the current systematic review and meta-analysis [7,8,[11][12][13][14][15][18][19][20][21]. Figure 1 and Table 1 show the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram and bias/quality assessment, respectively.…”

“…The overall conclusion of that systematic review was that the added benefit of the McKenzie MMDT compared to control or wait-and-see approaches may not be clinically important in terms of pain or disability [4]. Since that time, multiple high-quality studies examining the effectiveness of the McKenzie MMDT have been completed, prompting a new systematic review and firsttime meta-analysis [7,8,[11][12][13][14][15]. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the effectiveness of the McKenzie MMDT for adult patients with non-specific neck pain to improve evidencebased care and patient outcomes.…”

Effects of Telerehabilitation Combining Diaphragmatic Breathing Re-Education and Shoulder Stabilization Exercises on Neck Pain, Posture, and Function in Young Adult Men with Upper Crossed Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Before recruiting participants for this study, we performed a power analysis using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 (Franz Faul, University Kiel, Kiel, Germany, 2020). According to a previous study [5,[23][24][25][26][27], the effect size for PPT, CVA, RSP, STD, NDI, and CKCUEST was 0.506, 0.317, 0.899, 0.707, 0.078, and 0.412, respectively. This study calculated the effect size by averaging the effect sizes from previous studies.…”