Cited by 5Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Clinical feasibility of cervical exercise to improve neck pain, body function, and psychosocial factors in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Park, Seong Doo, Kim, Suhn Yeop·2015·Journal of Physical Therapy Science

Abstract

[Purpose] To investigate the effect of cervical exercise on neck pain, disability, and psychosocial factors in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder. [Subjects] Thirty patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, who also complained of neck pain. [Methods] The cervical exercise group (n = 15) participated in cervical exercises for 30 min, 3 times/week for 6 weeks, and the control group (n = 16) underwent conventional physical therapy alone, without exercise. The exercises were performed in the following order: cervical relaxation, local muscle stabilization, and global muscle stabilization using a sling system. [Results] Compared to the control group, the cervical exercise group demonstrated significant decreases as follows: Visual analogue scale score, 4.2 vs. 1.0; Neck disability index, 3.9 vs. 1.9; and depression on the Symptom checklist-90-revised, 9.4 vs. 4.3 and on the Hopkins symptom checklist-25, 6.3 vs. 2.8. However, anxiety on the Symptom checklist-90-revised (3.1 vs. 1.3) was not significantly different. Effect sizes were as follows: Visual analogue scale score, 1.8; Neck disability index, 0.9; depression, 1.0; and anxiety on Symptom checklist-90-revised and Hopkins symptom checklist-25, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. [Conclusion] Cervical exercise is effective in improving neck pain, disability, and efficacy of psychological treatment for depression in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1589/jpts.27.1369

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the 4 trials that examined a body-based intervention, no evident effect was reported on pain reduction and mental health outcomes for people with PTSD.

    “Of the 4 trials that examined a body-based interven­ tion, 33-36 no evident effect was reported on pain re­ duction and MH outcomes for people with PTSD.”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results (page not provided) report significantly greater reductions in neck pain and depression with cervical exercise than with control treatment in this PTSD trial. Anxiety did not differ significantly, but the paper's findings contradict the claim of no evident effect on pain reduction or mental-health outcomes for this trial. This paper does not assess the other three trials. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Park et al. (2015), a significant change from baseline to post-treatment on anxiety was found in the CE (mean difference: -3.1, P < .05) but not in the control group (mean difference -1.3, P < .05).

    “A significant change from baseline to post-treatment on anxiety was found in the CE (mean difference: -3.1, P < .05) but not in the control group (mean difference -1.3, P < .05)”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Park et al, (2015)

    Table 2 (Results) reports an anxiety change of −3.1 in the CE group, marked significant within group (p < 0.05), and −1.3 in the control group, with no significance mark. The claim correctly describes those changes and the control group's nonsignificant result, but its parenthetical “P < .05” for the control group is not supported by the table. The Results also report that the difference between groups was not significant (p = 0.092). (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Park et al. (2015), there was no significant between-group difference on anxiety (3.06 [2.32] for the CE group vs 1.26 [3.26] for the control group, P = .092, = .6, 95% CI 3.9, .3).

    “No significant between-group difference on anxiety (3.06 [2.32] for the CE group vs 1.26 [3.26] for the control group, P = .092, = .6, 95% CI 3.9, .3)”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Park et al, (2015)

    The Results report no significant between-group difference in anxiety (p = 0.092), and Table 2 gives an effect size of 0.6 and a 95% CI of 3.9 to 0.3. The CE-group value in the Results is 3.06 [2.31], however, not the claimed 3.06 [2.32]. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Park et al. (2015), there was a significantly greater change of the VAS in the CE group (4.26 [2.21]) than the control group (1.00 [1.19], P = .00, d = 1.8, 95% CI 1.9, 4.6).

    “There was a significantly greater change of the VAS in the CE group (4.26 [2.21]) than the control group (1.00 [1.19], P = .00, d = 1.8, 95% CI 1.9, 4.6)”
  • Out of 2 trials including tertiary outcomes of interest, all reported some positive findings, including significantly greater change of neck function.

    “Out of 2 trials including tertiary outcomes of interest, all reported some positive findings: significantly greater change of neck function, 33 along with decreased phy­ sical and emotional disturbances 34 were found.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [10]Diaz AB Motta R: The effects of an aerobic exercise program on posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity in adolescents. Int J Emerg Ment Health, 2008, 10: 49– 59. 18546759
  2. [16]Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, New York: Psychology Press, 1988.
  3. [21]Giombini A Di Cesare A Quaranta F et al.: Neck balance system in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain: a prospective randomized controlled study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 2013, 49: 283– 290. 23480978

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, S. D., & Kim, S. Y.
Affiliations
Daejeon University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Suhn Yeop
Venue
Journal of Physical Therapy Science
Published
2015
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
1369-1372
ISSN
  • 0915-5287 (ISSN-L)
  • 2187-5626
OpenAlex
W1929108268
Cited by
5
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Physical Therapy Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Daejeon University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, neck pain, neck disability, depression, anxiety, psychosocial factors, cervical relaxation, physiotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review