Immediate effects of cervicothoracic junction mobilization versus thoracic manipulation on the range of motion and pain in mechanical neck pain with cervicothoracic junction dysfunction: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Table 2 Comparison between the groups (unadjusted means)

Outcome	CT junction mobilization group (mean ± SD)			Thoracic manipulation group (mean ± SD)			Adjusted mean difference (95% CI)
Outcome	Baseline	Post treatment	p value	Baseline	Post treatment	p value		p value
Flexion	49.95 ± 8.59	54.52 ± 9.13	< 0.01	52.80 ± 11.88	55.28 ± 10.46	0.01	2.36 (− 0.9–5.6)	0.15
Extension	60.85 ± 13.15	64.42 ± 13.46	0.02	53.66 ± 10.51	58.09 ± 8.20	< 0.01	0.28 (− 3.2–3.8)	0.87
L SF	38.52 ± 9.20	41.33 ± 9.99	0.05	37.85 ± 9.18	41.19 ± 8.78	< 0.01	- 2.21 (− 4.9–0.5)	0.11
R SF	40.14 ± 10.38	41.66 ± 10.79	0.01	42.09 ± 11.42	42.09 ± 11.42	< 0.01	- 1.06 (− 4.2–2.1)	0.50
L ROT	61.80 ± 10.91	64.42 ± 12.36	< 0.01	57.90 ± 12.18	61.95 ± 14.10	0.02	1.42 (− 2.5–5.3)	0.47
R ROT	56.57 ± 10.06	59.90 ± 10.13	0.01	51.33 ± 15.85	57.71 ± 14.63	< 0.01	0.28 (− 3.4–3.9)	0.87
NRS	5.52 ± 1.47	4.33 ± 1.95	< 0.01	6.52 ± 1.80	5.23 ± 1.54	< 0.01	− 0.12 (− 0.9–0.6)	0.75

(L-left, R-right, SF-side flexion, ROT-rotation, SD- standard deviation; NRS- Numerical Rating Scale; Mean differences- CT junction mobilization group – Thoracic manipulation group)

ISSN: 2045-709X