Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07691151

Targeted Cervical Versus Integrated Trunk and Diaphragmatic Muscle Retraining for Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain

Persistent pain, functional disability, cervical motor control deficit, and abnormal posture are associated with chronic mechanical neck pain. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an integrated physiotherapy program of cervical motor control training, lumbopelvic stabilization, diaphragmatic breathing exercises, and pressure biofeedback versus conventional cervical physiotherapy in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain through a randomized controlled trial.

40 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. The two groups were all given supervised physiotherapy three times a week for 6 weeks plus a standardized home exercise program. The main aim was to investigate the efficacy of the interventions on pain intensity and neck related disability. Secondary outcomes were CROM, DCFE, head position, and patient perceived recovery. Outcome measures were conducted at both baseline and the end of the six-week intervention.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–60 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Thumbay Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Hospital

Ajman, Ajman Emirate, United Arab Emirates

About this study

Chronic mechanical neck pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions and is related to ongoing pain, diminished cervical movement, poor neck muscle control, poor posture, and diminished functional ability. Conventional physiotherapy emphasizes the mobility, strengthening, stretching and postural correction of the cervical region. Recent research indicates that cervical motor control, trunk stabilization and respiratory training may be beneficial when integrated into a rehabilitation program, as multiple aspects of spinal stability and motor control can be targeted.

The study was designed as a single center, parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial, to compare the effectiveness of integrated physiotherapy program to conventional cervical physiotherapy in subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain.

Participants were recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy department of Thumbay Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Hospital, Ajman, UAE, where they met the inclusion criteria for having mechanical neck pain with a duration of at least three months. After obtaining informed consent, participants were allocated by a computer-generated random sequence in a 1:1 ratio to either the experimental or control group, with allocation concealed.

The experimental group received an integrated rehabilitation program that included cervical motor control training with pressure biofeedback, lumbopelvic stabilization exercises, diaphragmatic breathing exercises and traditional physiotherapy interventions as clinically needed. The control group received conventional cervical physiotherapy which included cervical range of motion exercises, isometric strengthening, stretching, scapulothoracic strengthening, proprioceptive training, postural exercises, and other standard physiotherapy treatment. Both groups underwent supervised treatment three times a week for six weeks and an identical home exercise program during the intervention.

The primary outcome measures included intensity of pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale [NPRS]) and neck-related disability (Neck Disability Index [NDI]). Secondary outcome measures were the cervical range of motion, deep cervical flexor endurance, craniovertebral angle for head posture and the Global Rating of Change (GROC). Assessment of outcomes was conducted at baseline and at the end of the six-week interventions by an assessor who was not aware of the allocation of the interventions.

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated physiotherapy approach including cervical motor control training, lumbopelvic stabilization, diaphragmatic breathing exercises, and pressure biofeedback in comparison to a conventional cervical physiotherapy approach for reduction of pain, disability, and cervical function and postural control in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age in the range 18-60 years.
  • CNMP (lasting more than 3 months).
  • NPRS score ≥ 3.
  • Head Impact Test (HIT-6) score < 50.
  • Absence of clinical signs of cervical radiculopathy.
  • Capacity to comprehend study procedures, follow directions for exercising and sign informed consent in writing.
  • Diaphragmatic function impairment by the DNS diaphragm test with asymmetric or inadequate rib expansion laterally, high elevation of upper chest or shoulder girdle and diminished truncal stabilization during inhalation.

Exclusion criteria

  • Participants were excluded if they had cervical radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, previous cervical spine surgery, spinal fracture, inflammatory arthritis, malignancy, neurological disorders, pregnancy, or any other serious spinal pathology that would make it difficult for the participant to participate in the rehabilitation programme. People with cognitive deficits or any medical condition which hampered their safe involvement in the exercise programme were also excluded.

Treatment and study plan

Integrated Physiotherapy

Behavioral

Participants were given an integrated physiotherapy program which comprised motor control training for the cervical spine with pressure biofeedback, lumbopelvic stabilization exercises, diaphragmatic breathing exercises, and a standardized home exercise program. Three treatment sessions per week for six weeks were conducted under supervision.

Conventional Physiotherapy

Behavioral

Conventional cervical physiotherapy included cervical range-of-motion exercises, isometric strengthening, stretching, scapulothoracic strengthening, proprioceptive training, postural exercises, and a standardized home exercise program. Supervised treatment was provided three times per week for six weeks.

Primary outcomes

  1. Neck Disability

    Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks

    Neck-related disability will be assessed using the NDI. Higher scores indicate greater disability.

  2. Pain Intensity

    Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks

    Pain intensity will be assessed using the NPRS. The NPRS is an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). Lower scores indicate reduced pain intensity.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Cervical Range of Motion

    Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks

    Cervical range of motion will be measured in flexion, extension, rotation, and lateral flexion using standard clinical assessment procedures.

  2. Deep Cervical Flexor Endurance

    Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks

    Deep cervical flexor muscle endurance will be assessed using a standardized endurance test.

  3. Head Posture

    Time frame: Baseline and 6 weeks

    Forward head posture will be assessed by measuring the craniovertebral angle.

  4. Global Rating of Change

    Time frame: 6 weeks

    Participant-perceived overall improvement will be assessed using the GROC scale.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Gulf Medical University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Comparison of Targeted Cervical Versus Integrated Trunk and Diaphragmatic Muscle Retraining on Pain and Disability in Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Acronym: INT-CMNP

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
Jul 8, 2026
Registry last updated
Jul 8, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.