Tuina therapy plus resistance exercise vs. Tuina alone for mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Tuina and exercise therapy are widely used to treat mechanical neck pain (MNP), but evidence on their combined efficacy remains limited. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Tuina combined with resistance exercise (RE) versus Tuina alone in managing MNP.

Methods: We conducted a 4-week, analyst-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 90 participants with MNP. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either Tuina Therapy plus RE (TTRE, n = 45) or Tuina alone (n = 45). Both groups underwent two Tuina sessions per week for 4 weeks (eight sessions in total). In addition, the TTRE group performed RE three times daily for 4 weeks. Each RE consisted of 5 s of static resistance followed by 2 s of relaxation. The number of repetitions per session increased progressively: 5 in week 1, 10 in week 2, 15 in week 3, and 20 in week 4. The primary outcome was the change in pain visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline to week 4. Secondary outcomes included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, peak strength of cervical muscle (PSCM), cervical range of motion (CROM), cervical curvature (Cobb Angle), and adverse events.

Results: The mean age of the 90 enrolled patients was 26.4 years [standard deviation (SD), 3.1 and 49 (54.4%) were female]. The mean difference in VAS scores from baseline at week 4 for TTRE group was −4.2 (95% CI, −4.4 to −4.0). At week 4, the difference in VAS score was 0.5(95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77; p < 0.001) between Tuina group and TTRE group.

Conclusion: In this study, participants with MNP in the TTRE group showed statistically greater improvements than those in the Tuina group in pain reduction, functional recovery, extension PSCM, and flexion CROM at week 4. TTRE may be considered a valuable option in the management of MNP.

Clinical trial registration: We registered the trial with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300068344; Registration Date: February 15, 2023) at http://www.chictr.org.cn.

1 Background

Mechanical neck pain (MNP) refers to pain localized in the cervical spine, occipital region, or posterior scapular area, typically accompanied by restricted neck mobility (1). This musculoskeletal disorder has an annual prevalence exceeding 30% and may affect up to 50% of the general population at some stage in their lives (2). As the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide, neck pain can profoundly impair physical function, psychological health, and social well-being, and it places a considerable burden on healthcare systems through increased costs (3). The prognosis of MNP is influenced by multiple factors, including the duration of symptoms, the presence of associated clinical features, and the nature and timing of therapeutic intervention (4). In the absence of appropriate management, symptoms may persist or progressively deteriorate into chronicity, as the potential for spontaneous resolution is generally limited (5). Evidence from clinical studies indicates that control groups typically exhibit only minimal improvements in pain intensity and neck-related functional outcomes over short-term durations, such as 4 weeks (6, 7). These findings underscore the limited potential for spontaneous recovery within this timeframe and reinforce the imperative for active therapeutic intervention. Various conservative therapies are recommended for the treatment of MNP (8, 9). For example, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently employed in the management of MNP due to their established efficacy and remain widely used; however, their widespread application continues to raise concerns regarding their adverse event profile, necessitating careful monitoring and individualized consideration (10, 11). Chiropractic care has been widely utilized in healthcare systems for managing neck and back pain as a non-invasive approach to alleviate symptoms and improve function (12, 13). Consequently, non-pharmaceutical therapies, such as traditional Chinese medicine and therapeutic exercise, warrant increased consideration as viable alternatives.

Traditional Chinese manual therapy, known as Tuina in China, has been practiced for thousands of years. Tuina typically involves stimulation of specific acupuncture points along meridian pathways and incorporates passive mobilization techniques targeting the patient’s joints. The therapeutic effects are mediated through a range of manual techniques (e.g., pressing, pushing, kneading), characterized by the sustained, controlled, and precise application of force that is simultaneously deep and gentle (14). The efficacy and safety of Tuina in pain management have been substantiated in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of neck pain (15), low back pain (16, 17), and knee pain (18, 19). Our previous experimental studies suggest that the analgesic effects of Tuina are mediated through modulation of neuroimmune pathways (20, 21), suppression of microglial activation (22), regulation of inflammatory mediators (23), and induction of cortical remodeling (24). Tuina may also attenuate intervertebral disk degeneration by mitigating oxidative stress and modulating enzymatic activity (25). Despite these benefits, the effectiveness of Tuina appears to be constrained by the limited frequency of treatment sessions (26). Given that Tuina is inherently passive and practitioner-dependent, its integration with active, home-based exercise interventions may enhance long-term therapeutic outcomes.

Among complementary interventions for neck pain, exercise therapy possesses the most robust evidence base (27). Resistance exercise (RE), in particular, is practical, widely accessible, and effective in enhancing muscle strength (28). A systematic review further demonstrated that RE yields greater reductions in neck pain and disability compared with alternative exercise modalities (29). Moreover, electromyographic studies in patients with patellar tendinopathy suggest that isometric RE may alleviate cortical inhibition and facilitate motor cortical reorganization, mechanisms that may contribute to its analgesic effects (30, 31). Despite its clinical utility, the evidence base for RE in MNP remains limited, primarily due to a paucity of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This gap underscores the need for rigorously designed protocols that systematically account for critical variables such as exercise intensity, frequency, and recovery intervals (32). Recent investigations into the dose–response relationship of RE indicate that a single daily 10-min high-intensity session may provide pain relief comparable to that achieved with two 10-min sessions over a 16-week intervention period (33). Notably, evidence from other musculoskeletal pain conditions has suggested potential advantages of combining RE with manual therapy. A recent RCT in knee osteoarthritis patients reported superior pain outcomes with a RE-based combined intervention compared with a single-modality approach (34). Although these findings cannot be directly extrapolated to neck pain, they support the broader rationale that multimodal strategies may better address the complex and multifactorial nature of musculoskeletal pain, reinforcing the increasing clinical interest in combination therapy (35, 36).

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Tuina therapy plus RE (TTRE) in the management of MNP. Given the substantial societal and familial economic burden associated with MNP and related pain conditions—reflected in an annual healthcare expenditure of approximately NOK 6.35 billion in Norway [2019; (37)]—together with the scarcity of high-quality RE RCTs (29), this trial hypothesized that TTRE would be superior to Tuina alone in reducing pain intensity. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity, as measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, following a 4-week intervention. We further hypothesized that TTRE would lead to greater improvements in disability and muscle strength compared with Tuina alone.

2 Methods

2.1 Study design

We conducted a 4-week RCT with two parallel arms: a control group receiving Tuina and an intervention group receiving TTRE. The study protocol was approved by the regional ethics review committee of Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine. We determined the study sample size based on the primary pain VAS outcome. According to data from a previous study (35), the expected post-treatment VAS scores were 3.67 for patients with MNP receiving Tuina therapy and 2.87 for those receiving TTRE. Sample size estimation was performed using the Giga Calculator, assuming a statistical power of 80%, a two-sided significance level of 5%, and a 95% confidence interval. The required sample size was estimated to be 82 participants. To account for an anticipated attrition rate of approximately 10%, the final target sample size was increased to 90 participants. Accordingly, 90 eligible patients with MNP were randomly assigned to the two groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participant flow, reported in accordance with CONSORT guidelines, is presented in Figure 1. All interventions were administered at Yueyang hospital.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flowchart of study design.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

The study enrolled participants of both sexes, aged 18 to 40 years, presenting with neck pain or dysfunction attributed to MNP. Diagnosis was established based on medical history (38), physical examination (39), and radiographic assessment, in accordance with the Canadian C-Spine Rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) (40).

Exclusion criteria comprised a history of fractures, paraplegia, acute traumatic conditions with uncertain diagnosis, or severe osteoporosis; prior whiplash, head, or neck trauma; neck pain associated with serious systemic diseases (cardiac, cerebral, hepatic, pulmonary, renal, hematologic, or endocrine); women who were pregnant, planning pregnancy, lactating, or postpartum; and individuals intolerant to Tuina or who had participated in other clinical trials within 2 weeks prior to enrollment. Participants were considered withdrawn if they discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy or adverse effects, lost contact, or were excluded by investigators due to poor compliance or serious adverse events.

2.3 Randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding

Participants were primarily recruited from Yueyang hospital. Interested individuals contacted the research team via phone or a WeChat QR code, both of them being the widely used platform for accessing health information in China (41). A researcher verbally explained the study protocol and eligibility criteria, and preliminary eligibility was assessed by telephone following verbal consent. Eligible candidates were then provided with study documents via WeChat or email and were given a minimum of 24 h to review the materials prior to providing consent. Participants who met the eligibility criteria were invited to attend a baseline assessment session, during which eligibility was reconfirmed and written informed consent was obtained. An independent statistician generated the allocation sequence using a random number generator in SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), employing a block size of 10. Allocation concealment was maintained using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes prepared by independent staff. Each participant was assigned a unique study ID, and the intervention was revealed upon opening the corresponding envelope. Owing to the nature of the intervention, Tuina practitioners, physical therapists, and participants were aware of group allocation, whereas outcome assessors, data collectors and analysts remained blinded.

2.4 Interventions

Patients in both the Tuina and TTRE groups underwent two Tuina sessions per week for 4 weeks. All treatments were delivered by a licensed senior therapist with over 10 years of clinical experience. The intensity of Tuina was individualized based on physical examination, clinical judgment, and participant feedback. The therapist followed a standardized five-step protocol, including Yi Zhi Chan pushing, rolling combined with passive movements, pull-stretching and subtle adjusting cervical spine, pressing Tianzong (SI11) and grasping Jianjing (GB21). The Tuina protocol has been previously reported in our earlier publication (42). A detailed description is provided in the Supplementary Material in Supplementary File 1, and a video demonstration of the specific manual techniques is available in Supplementary Video 1.

In addition to the 8 Tuina sessions, participants in the TTRE group performed a RE protocol commonly used in clinical practice in China (43). The protocol primarily comprised isometric exercises targeting the neck extensor muscles (42). Each repetition lasted 7 s, alternating between exertion and rest. Participants initially performed 5 repetitions per set, three times daily (morning, noon, and evening) for 6 times a week. Repetitions were gradually increased by 5 per set each week, reaching 20 per set by week four. A moderate intensity was considered appropriate, as higher frequency was deemed unnecessary. Each participant received a brief instructional leaflet illustrating proper exercise techniques. To promote adherence and accurate performance, participants were encouraged to record their exercises and share the videos with the therapist via WeChat for review and feedback. Participants were enrolled in a dedicated study group and instructed to submit a complete video of each daily exercise session via an embedded mini-program (Chain Sign-Up Assistant), followed by mandatory group check-in confirmation. Two trained administrators oversaw adherence: one monitored quantitative compliance (completed/prescribed sessions × 100%) and issued reminders for missed sessions, while the other reviewed videos to provide real-time individualized postural corrections and exercise guidance. This system ensured both adherence verification and intervention fidelity. Detailed instructions are provided in the Supplementary File 2.

2.5 Outcomes

The primary outcome was the change in pain VAS from baseline to week 4. Secondary outcomes included: (1) VAS at week 1, 2, and 3; (2) Neck Disability Index (NDI) at week 1–4; (3) peak cervical muscle strength (PSCM) at week 4; (4) cervical range of motion (CROM) at week 4; and (5) cervical curvature (Cobb angle) at week 4.

2.5.1 VAS

Pain intensity is assessed using a 10-cm horizontal VAS with 0 representing no pain and 10 the worst imaginable pain (44). The VAS is a reliable and valid measure of pain, with reported intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 (45).

2.5.2 NDI

Functional capacity and physical activity were assessed by NDI (46). The questionnaire concludes a total of 10 questions, with each question providing 6 possible answers ranging from 0 (no disability) to 5 (complete disability). The total NDI score ranges from 0 to 50.

2.5.3 PSCM

The PSCM is measured using a Hoggan MicroFET3 dynamometer (Hoggan Scientific LLC, United States), a method shown to be reliable and reproducible for assessing muscle performance (47–49). Four measurements are taken for each neck movement (flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion), and the average value is recorded.

2.5.4 CROM

The CROM is assessed with the Hoggan MicroFET3 clinometer (Hoggan Scientific LLC, United States). Flexion, extension, and lateral flexion were measured in the seated position, and rotation in the supine position (50). Each movement was measured three times, and the average value was used for analysis.

2.5.5 Cobb angle

Cervical curvature was assessed from lateral radiographs acquired using the radiographic system (Winning Health, WiNEX). The Cobb angle from C2 to C7 was measured independently by two reviewers, a method with high reliability (51). During radiography, the participant was positioned sideways with the chin raised to align the nose line perpendicular to the trunk. The shoulder blades are lowered and retracted toward the midline to optimize imaging.

2.5.6 Adverse events

Any adverse event, such as unfavorable or unintended signs, symptoms, or diseases, related to the Tuina therapy or RE was reported by patients and Tuina doctors. Severe adverse events had to be reported to the principal investigator and the data and safety monitoring board within 24 h after their occurrence.

2.6 Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed in accordance with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle using SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, United States), with missing data addressed by single imputation using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation if normally distributed, or as median with interquartile range if non-normally distributed. Categorical variables were presented as counts and percentages. Normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction. Parametric or non-parametric methods were applied according to the results of normality and homogeneity tests. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to evaluate treatment, time, and their interaction, while paired t-tests assessed within-group changes. Categorical outcomes, including adverse events, were compared using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed p < 0.05.

3 Results

3.1 Participant characteristics

Of 106 individuals screened, 90 patients (84.9%) with MNP met the inclusion criteria and were randomized to either the Tuina group (n = 45) or the TTRE group (n = 45). The mean [standard deviation (SD)] age was 26.4 (3.1) years, with 49 females (54.4%) and 41 males (45.6%). Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. All participants completed the 4-week outcome assessments. The compliance rate of the RE at week 1, week 2, week 3 and week 4 was 100.0, 88.9, 93.3 and 97.8%, respectively, in the TTRE group, while the compliance rates of Tuina during the 4-week in both groups were high, 100%.

Table 1

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants (n = 90).

3.2 Efficacy

Changes in VAS scores from baseline to week 4, the primary outcome, was summarized in Table 2. The Tuina group showed a mean reduction of −4.2 (95% CI, −4.4 to −4.0), while the TTRE group showed a mean reduction of −4.7 (95% CI, −5.0 to −4.4). The between-group difference in VAS change at week 4 was significant in favor of the TTRE group (−0.5; 95% CI, −0.77 to −0.30; p < 0.001).

Table 2

Table 2. Primary outcome by group in mechanical neck pain.

Secondary outcomes were reported in Table 3. The TTRE group demonstrated significantly greater improvements compared with the Tuina group in NDI (−1.5; 95% CI, −2.1 to −0.9), PSCM for extension (−2.3; 95% CI, −3.5 to −1.1), and CROM for flexion (3.7°; 95% CI, 0.3° to7.2°) at week 4. Moreover, the TTRE group demonstrated a greater reduction in VAS compared with the Tuina group at week 3 (−0.3; 95% CI, −0.52 to −0.02; p = 0.038). Longitudinal trends in VAS and NDI are illustrated in Figures 2A,B.

Table 3

Table 3. Secondary outcomes by group in mechanical neck pain.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Changes in VAS and NDI scores. (A, B) depict the longitudinal changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) scores, respectively, in the Tuina and TTRE groups. VAS measures pain intensity, while NDI assesses neck pain-related disability. The data demonstrate the progression or improvement in symptoms and functional outcomes across the observed period.

3.3 Adverse events

No adverse events were reported during the trial.

4 Discussion

Our findings suggest that TTRE was associated with statistically greater reductions in neck pain and functional limitations compared with Tuina alone. Both groups showed statistically significant reductions in pain and improvements in function compared with baseline after 4 weeks. However, although the between-group difference in mean VAS reduction (0.5 points) reached statistical significance, it did not exceed the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.2–1.5 points (15, 52), indicating that the observed superiority was limited in short-term clinical relevance. The statistically significant difference in the primary outcome (pain VAS) may be partly attributable to the small variability in patient-reported pain (i.e., small SD values) in both treatment arms. This modest short-term between-group difference likely reflects real-world clinical conditions, in which Tuina itself provides appreciable analgesic effects, thereby attenuating the incremental benefit of the combined intervention. Importantly, emerging evidence suggests that clinically meaningful between-group differences may become more apparent with longer intervention durations. For instance, a recent RCT in patients with chronic neck pain reported that the MCID for pain reduction with manual therapy combined with cognitive therapy increased to 1.974 at week 8, representing a 56.17% increase compared with week 4 (53). Collectively, these findings suggest that the 4-week intervention period may have been insufficient to capture cumulative or delayed clinical benefits, underscoring the need for longer treatment durations and post-intervention follow-up in future studies.

Notably, a higher proportion of TTRE participants exceeded the MCID threshold (83.3% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.05), corresponding to a 16.6% absolute increase in clinically meaningful pain relief. Although the mean difference was modest, TTRE enhanced the probability of achieving meaningful individual improvement, highlighting its clinical relevance in clinical practice. Interestingly, a statistically significant between-group difference in VAS scores emerged at week 3, although the mean difference was modest (0.3 points), likely reflecting the homogeneous baseline characteristics of participants (e.g., age and occupation) that contributed to similar initial pain levels. The narrow confidence interval indicates a precise estimate. By week 4, the difference increased to 0.5 points. The progressive widening of this gap suggests a cumulative treatment effect, warranting evaluation over longer intervention periods. Notably, improvements in VAS scores preceded NDI gains by 1 week. This is clinically relevant, as individuals with neck pain primarily seek care for persistent pain and activity limitations (54, 55), and effective pain relief may reduce pain-related fear and promote functional recovery (56).

For the secondary outcomes, although statistically significant changes were observed, effect sizes were small and the confidence intervals were wide. At week 4, greater improvements were noted in NDI, flexion CROM and extension PSCM in the TTRE group. While not all variables reached statistical significance, the overall pattern suggests that incorporating RE enhances cervical muscle strength across multiple directions and improves range of motion, consistent with the protocol’s design. Previous studies (57, 58) have reported that RE can increase cervical flexor strength by 28–110% (2.6–5.1 kg) and extensor strength by 16–69% (2–8 kg). A recent study reported greater improvements in cervical flexor strength (51%, 3.26 kg) than extensor strength (33%, 1.78 kg) following a progressive shoulder-neck exercise program incorporating cranio-cervical flexion exercises targeting the extensors (59). Our RE protocol was based on the similar principle, which may explain why only extension PSCM improved significantly. Both groups demonstrated CROM increases across all directions, with the TTRE group exhibiting greater flexion CROM gains. This finding aligns with Lee et al. (60), who reported that modified cervical and shoulder retraction exercises improved cervical lordosis, potentially contributing to increased flexion CROM.

Guidelines for MNP recommend exercise-based multimodal interventions (8, 61, 62). Nonetheless, robust evidence supporting a specific multimodal approach or subtype of exercise therapy remains limited (61–63). Recent RCTs on Tuina for neck pain have provided a potential basis supporting exercise-combined therapies (15, 64). Several scholars have proposed that classifying neck pain by patient characteristics and tailoring exercise accordingly may improve outcomes (65, 66). Progressive RE served as a personalized intervention, emphasizing gradual adaptation to intensity and frequency in this trial. RE-combined therapy produced greater improvements in pain and function than Tuina alone. Incorporating social cognitive strategies (e.g., video sharing and therapist feedback via WeChat) likely enhanced adherence and engagement, contributing to the high completion rate.

Owing to the exclusion of structural pathology in MNP, Tuina is an appropriate intervention with a favorable safety profile (15). Incorporating home-based RE may reduce the need for frequent Tuina sessions, improve cost-effectiveness, and support the transition from passive care to active self-management. This RCT demonstrates that integrating Tuina with RE effectively alleviates neck pain. Positive outcomes across standardized measures (VAS, NDI, PSCM, and CROM) suggest the potential clinical value of this combined approach and provide preliminary support for its use as an evidence-based therapeutic option.

Nevertheless, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, blinding of participants and therapists was not feasible, introducing potential performance bias. Second, this single-center study involved a relatively homogeneous sample, and potential self-selection may further limit its representativeness, thereby constraining the generalizability of the findings to broader clinical settings, diverse populations, and different healthcare contexts. Third, only the immediate effects of the 4-week intervention were assessed, with no independent follow-up, leaving the durability of treatment effects and potential symptom decay or rebound unknown. While suitable for evaluating short-term responses, this design limits the applicability of the findings to real-world clinical decision-making, where sustained functional improvement is a primary goal. Finally, the individual clinical effects of RE were not assessed and should be investigated in future trials.

To address these limitations and strengthen the evidence base, future research should prioritize (1) large-scale, multicenter, and (when feasible) blinded RCTs to enhance external validity and reduce bias; (2) the incorporation of methodologically rigorous, long-term follow-up assessments (e.g., at 3, 6, and 12 months post-intervention) to evaluate the durability of effects, cost-effectiveness, and the potential for symptom rebound; and (3) well-designed studies to isolate and quantify the specific contribution of RE to the observed outcomes.

5 Conclusion

In this RCT, participants with MNP who received TTRE showed statistically greater improvements in pain intensity, disability, extension PSCM and flexion CROM than those who underwent Tuina therapy alone. These findings suggest that the integration of Tuina with RE can provide short-term benefits for pain and function in MNP. Therefore, the integration of Tuina with RE is recommended as an adjunctive therapeutic approach for enhancing pain relief and functional outcomes in patients with MNP. To establish its long-term efficacy, clinical sustainability, and cost-effectiveness, large-scale trials with extended follow-up periods are warranted. Future research should also aim to determine the optimal dosage and delivery format of the combined intervention for broader clinical implementation.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Regional Ethics Review Committee of Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

SZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation. ZW: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. YC: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Methodology. HX: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation. YS: Project administration, Writing – original draft. YF: Project administration, Writing – original draft. YL: Writing – original draft, Project administration. ZK: Writing – original draft, Supervision. JC: Resources, Writing – original draft. JiaL: Writing – original draft, Data curation. JieL: Writing – original draft, Data curation. JW: Writing – original draft, Resources. MF: Writing – original draft, Resources. WS: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82474672), Tuina, High-level Key Discipline Construction Project of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (zyyzdxk-2023061), Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (2022QN059) and Clinical Research Talent Training Program of Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (NO.2023LCRC14).

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all participants, including the patients, study physician, Tuina doctors, physical therapists, assessors, data collectors, and analysts, who made this study possible.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2026.1709232/full#supplementary-material

Abbreviations

CROM, Cervical Range of Motion; MCID, Minimal Clinically Important Difference; MNP, Mechanical Neck Pain; NDI, Neck Disability Index; PSCM, Peak Strength of Cervical Muscle; RE, Resistance Exercise; TTRE, Tuina Therapy plus RE; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale.

References

1. Ahn, NU, Ahn, UM, Ipsen, B, and An, HS. Mechanical neck pain and cervicogenic headache. Neurosurgery. (2007) 60:S21–7. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000249258.94041.C6,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Cohen, SP. Epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of neck pain. Mayo Clin Proc. (2015) 90:284–99. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.09.008,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Hoy, D, March, L, Woolf, A, Blyth, F, Brooks, P, Smith, E, et al. The global burden of neck pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. (2014) 73:1309–15. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204431,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Binder, A. The diagnosis and treatment of nonspecific neck pain and whiplash. Eura Medicophys. (2007) 43:79–89.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

5. Childress, MA, and Stuek, SJ. Neck pain: initial evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician. (2020) 102:150–6.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

6. Cerezo-Téllez, E, Torres-Lacomba, M, Fuentes-Gallardo, I, Perez-Muñoz, M, Mayoral-Del-Moral, O, Lluch-Girbés, E, et al. Effectiveness of dry needling for chronic nonspecific neck pain: a randomized, single-blinded, clinical trial. Pain. (2016) 157:1905–17. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000591,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Augustsson, SR, Reinodt, S, Sunesson, E, and Haglund, E. Short-term effects of postural taping on pain and forward head posture: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. (2022) 23:162. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05083-5,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Blanpied, PR, Gross, AR, Elliott, JM, Devaney, LL, Clewley, D, Walton, DM, et al. Neck pain: revision 2017. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. (2017) 47:A1–a83. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.0302,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Surgery. The experts consensus on the classification, diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of cervical spondylisis (2018). Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. (2018) 56:401–2. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2018.06.001,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Hsieh, LF, Hong, CZ, Chern, SH, and Chen, CC. Efficacy and side effects of diclofenac patch in treatment of patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the upper trapezius. J Pain Symptom Manag. (2010) 39:116–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.05.016,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. da Costa, BR, Reichenbach, S, Keller, N, Nartey, L, Wandel, S, Jüni, P, et al. Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. (2017) 390:e21–33. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31744-0,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Chu, EC, Trager, RJ, and Lee, WT. Use of thrust cervical spinal manipulative therapy for complicated neck pain: a cross-sectional survey of Asia-Pacific chiropractors. Cureus. (2022) 14:e32441. doi: 10.7759/cureus.32441,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Ng, L, Chu, V, Lam, KK, Chan, V, Lau, R, Leung, A, et al. Meeting future demand for chiropractic Services in Hong Kong: A strategic manpower planning approach. Cureus. (2023) 15:e37481. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37481,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Sun, WQ, Yan, JT, Shen, GQ, Fang, M, Gong, L, and Liu, KP, A brief introduction to Ding's Tuina school. The 14th Tuina academic exchange meeting of Tuina branch of Chinese association of traditional Chinese medicine. (2013) 1. Available online at: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=ZZIl2iqmIcQ9m-xPDygAEDfUVYe7CMSxv9x5tvsZkdLJ3XxcvZ0pMYxTEs9AhgDXmYC5Xipg86 KPEeSFu2jYoBeIcdslbXPUXxbFWXcB0aNJnN1FUWUKxO3o6mQLbqjVUjXdN8 PadO5fDHo7SJoaqRomY9Uo3fpFjweEWFvyz4lIVtOR3IWZ9l9uyr1D6Tha YvGewb8Ed0o=&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS (Accessed July 6, 2025).

Google Scholar

15. Cheng, ZJ, Zhang, SP, Gu, YJ, Chen, ZY, Xie, FF, Guan, C, et al. Effectiveness of Tuina therapy combined with Yijinjing exercise in the treatment of nonspecific chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. (2022) 5:e2246538. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46538,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Cao, B, Zhou, X, Zhang, SP, Zhu, QG, Kong, LJ, and Fang, M. Effect of traditional Chinese manual therapy on alleviating pain and dysfunction of lumbar disc herniation: a randomized controlled pilot study. Am J Transl Res. (2022) 14:6941–52.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

17. Zhou, X, Kong, L, Ren, J, Song, P, Wu, Z, He, T, et al. Effect of traditional Chinese exercise combined with massage on pain and disability in patients with lumbar disc herniation: A multi-center, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded clinical trial. Front Neurol. (2022) 13:952346. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.952346,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Xu, H, Zhao, C, Guo, G, Li, Y, A, X, Qiu, G, et al. The effectiveness of Tuina in relieving pain, negative emotions, and disability in knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Pain Med. (2023) 24:244–57. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnac127

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Zhang, S, Guo, G, Li, X, Yao, F, Wu, Z, Zhu, Q, et al. The effectiveness of traditional Chinese Yijinjing qigong exercise for the patients with knee osteoarthritis on the pain, dysfunction, and mood disorder: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Front Med. (2021) 8:792436. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.792436

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Song, P, Sun, W, Zhang, H, Fang, M, Lin, Z, Wu, Z, et al. Possible mechanism underlying analgesic effect of Tuina in rats may involve piezo mechanosensitive channels within dorsal root ganglia axon. J Tradit Chin Med. (2018) 38:834–41.

Google Scholar

21. Yao, C, Ren, J, Huang, R, Tang, C, Cheng, Y, Lv, Z, et al. Transcriptome profiling of microRNAs reveals potential mechanisms of manual therapy alleviating neuropathic pain through microRNA-547-3p-mediated Map4k4/NF-κb signaling pathway. J Neuroinflammation. (2022) 19:211. doi: 10.1186/s12974-022-02568-x,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Liu, Z, Wang, H, Yu, T, Jiao, Y, Zhang, Y, Liu, D, et al. A review on the mechanism of Tuina promoting the recovery of peripheral nerve injury. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. (2021) 2021:6652099. doi: 10.1155/2021/6652099,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Zhiwei, WU, Qingguang, Z, Lingjun, K, Pengfei, S, Xin, Z, Guangxin, G, et al. Tuina alleviates neuropathic pain through regulate the activation of microglia and the secretion of inflammatory cytokine in spinal cord. J Tradit Chin Med. (2024) 44:762–9. doi: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20240515.002,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Wu, Z, Guo, G, Zhang, Y, Li, Y, He, T, Zhu, Q, et al. Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals brain remodeling after Tuina therapy in neuropathic pain model. Front Mol Neurosci. (2023) 16:1231374. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2023.1231374,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Yao, C, Guo, G, Huang, R, Tang, C, Zhu, Q, Cheng, Y, et al. Manual therapy regulates oxidative stress in aging rat lumbar intervertebral discs through the SIRT1/FOXO1 pathway. Aging Albany. (2022) 14:2400–17. doi: 10.18632/aging.203949,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Pandya, J, Puentedura, EJ, Koppenhaver, S, and Cleland, J. Dry needling versus manual therapy for patients with mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. (2024) 54:267–78. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12091,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Cohen, SP, and Hooten, WM. Advances in the diagnosis and management of neck pain. BMJ. (2017) 358:j3221. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3221,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Law, TD, Clark, LA, and Clark, BC. Resistance exercise to prevent and manage sarcopenia and dynapenia. Annu Rev Gerontol Geriatr. (2016) 36:205–28. doi: 10.1891/0198-8794.36.205,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Mueller, J, Weinig, J, Niederer, D, Tenberg, S, and Mueller, S. Resistance, motor control, and mindfulness-based exercises are effective for treating chronic nonspecific neck pain: A systematic review with Meta-analysis and dose-response Meta-regression. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. (2023) 53:420–59. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2023.11820

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Rio, E, Kidgell, D, Purdam, C, Gaida, J, Moseley, GL, Pearce, AJ, et al. Isometric exercise induces analgesia and reduces inhibition in patellar tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. (2015) 49:1277–83. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094386

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Tsao, H, Danneels, LA, and Hodges, PW. ISSLS prize winner: smudging the motor brain in young adults with recurrent low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). (2011) 36:1721–7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821c4267,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Bird, SP, Tarpenning, KM, and Marino, FE. Designing resistance training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: a review of the acute programme variables. Sports Med. (2005) 35:841–51. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200535100-00002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Saeterbakken, AH, Makrygiannis, P, Stien, N, Solstad, TEJ, Shaw, M, Andersen, V, et al. Dose-response of resistance training for neck-and shoulder pain relief: a workplace intervention study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. (2020) 12:8. doi: 10.1186/s13102-020-0158-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Nouman, M, Shabnam, J, Anwar, S, Perveen, W, Alexe, DI, Sánchez-Gómez, R, et al. Effect of iliotibial band myofascial release combined with Valgus correction exercise on pain, range of motion, balance, and quality of life in patients with grade II knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Life. (2024) 14:1379. doi: 10.3390/life14111379

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Ding, CQ. Clinical observation of Tuina combined with lower cervical resistance exercise in the treatment of neck-type cervical spondylosis [in Chinese]. Chin J Integr Tradit West Med. (2019) 29:41–2. doi: 10.16458/j.cnki.1007-0893.2019.03.020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Cheng, Z, Chen, Z, Xie, F, Guan, C, Gu, Y, Wang, R, et al. Efficacy of Yijinjing combined with Tuina for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. (2021) 22:586. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05557-2,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Kinge, JM, Dieleman, JL, Karlstad, Ø, Knudsen, AK, Klitkou, ST, Hay, SI, et al. Disease-specific health spending by age, sex, and type of care in Norway: a national health registry study. BMC Med. (2023) 21:201. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02896-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. He, SS, and Fang, FF. Expert consensus on traction treatment of cervical spondylosis [in Chinese]. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord. (2020) 30:1136–43.

Google Scholar

39. Rushton, A, Rivett, D, Carlesso, L, Flynn, T, Hing, W, and Kerry, R. International framework for examination of the cervical region for potential of cervical arterial dysfunction prior to orthopaedic manual therapy intervention. Man Ther. (2014) 19:222–8. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2013.11.005,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Michaleff, ZA, Maher, CG, Verhagen, AP, Rebbeck, T, and Lin, CW. Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review. CMAJ. (2012) 184:E867–76. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.120675,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Zhang, X, Wen, D, Liang, J, and Lei, J. How the public uses social media wechat to obtain health information in China: a survey study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. (2017) 17:66. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0470-0,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Zheng, S, Xing, H, Shan, Y, Fu, Y, Li, Y, Chen, J, et al. Chief physician SUN Wuquan’s experience collection in treating neck-type cervical spondylosis with Tuina therapy. J Acupunct Tuina Sci. (2023) 21:398–404. doi: 10.1007/s11726-023-1398-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Sun, W. Part 0007|simple and safe exercises for the cervical spine. (2024). Available online at: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/RhcgrP78YCzX47DxRj7Mlw (Accessed May 18, 2025).

Google Scholar

44. Hawker, GA, Mian, S, Kendzerska, T, and French, M. Measures of adult pain: visual Analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short Form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. (2011) 63:S240–52. doi: 10.1002/acr.20543

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Bijur, PE, Silver, W, and Gallagher, EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. (2001) 8:1153–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Yao, M, Sun, YL, Cao, ZY, Dun, RL, Yang, L, Zhang, BM, et al. A systematic review of cross-cultural adaptation of the neck disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). (2015) 40:480–90. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000788,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Lee, SC, Wu, LC, Chiang, SL, Lu, LH, Chen, CY, Lin, CH, et al. Validating the capability for measuring age-related changes in grip-force strength using a digital hand-held dynamometer in healthy young and elderly adults. Biomed Res Int. (2020) 2020:6936879. doi: 10.1155/2020/6936879,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Liang, PJ, Chiu, VJ, Teng, YC, Chiu, HL, and Lee, SC. Turning difficulties after stroke and its relationship with trunk function. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. (2021) 57:859–65. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06841-6,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Mylonas, K, Angelopoulos, P, Billis, E, Tsepis, E, and Fousekis, K. Combining targeted instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization applications and neuromuscular exercises can correct forward head posture and improve the functionality of patients with mechanical neck pain: a randomized control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. (2021) 22:212. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04080-4,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Norkin, CC, and White, DJ. Measurement of joint motion: A guide to goniometry FA Davis (2016).

Google Scholar

51. Pai, SA, Zhang, H, Shewchuk, JR, Al Omran, B, Street, J, Wilson, D, et al. Quantitative identification and segmentation repeatability of thoracic spinal muscle morphology. JOR Spine. (2020) 3:e1103. doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1103

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Farrar, JT, Troxel, AB, Stott, C, Duncombe, P, and Jensen, MP. Validity, reliability, and clinical importance of change in a 0-10 numeric rating scale measure of spasticity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Ther. (2008) 30:974–85. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.05.011,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Anwar, S, Zahid, J, Alexe, CI, Ghazi, A, Mareș, G, Sheraz, Z, et al. Effects of myofascial release technique along with cognitive behavior therapy in university students with chronic neck pain and forward head posture: a randomized clinical trial. Behav Sci. (2024) 14:205. doi: 10.3390/bs14030205,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Chen, Q, Berg, B, Grotle, M, Maher, CG, Storheim, K, and Machado, GC. Primary care seeking among adults with chronic neck and low back pain in Norway: a prospective study from the HUNT study linked to Norwegian primary healthcare registry. Eur J Pain. (2024) 28:1799–810. doi: 10.1002/ejp.2310,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Oliveira, CB, Pinto, RZ, Damato, TM, Lemes, IR, Delfino, LD, Tebar, WR, et al. Daily activity limitations and physical activity encouragement influence adolescents seeking health care for neck and low back pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. (2021) 54:102385. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102385,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Thompson, DP, Oldham, JA, and Woby, SR. Does adding cognitive-behavioural physiotherapy to exercise improve outcome in patients with chronic neck pain? A randomised controlled trial. Physiotherapy. (2016) 102:170–7. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2015.04.008,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Karlsson, L, Takala, EP, Gerdle, B, and Larsson, B. Evaluation of pain and function after two home exercise programs in a clinical trial on women with chronic neck pain – with special emphasises on completers and responders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. (2014) 15:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-6,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Ylinen, J, Takala, EP, Nykänen, M, Häkkinen, A, Mälkiä, E, Pohjolainen, T, et al. Active neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic neck pain in women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. (2003) 289:2509–16. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.19.2509

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Lin, IH, Chang, KH, Liou, TH, Tsou, CM, and Huang, YC. Progressive shoulder-neck exercise on cervical muscle functions in middle-aged and senior patients with chronic neck pain. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. (2018) 54:13–21. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04658-5,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Lee, MY, Jeon, H, Choi, JS, Park, Y, and Ryu, JS. Efficacy of modified cervical and shoulder retraction exercise in patients with loss of cervical lordosis and neck pain. Ann Rehabil Med. (2020) 44:210–7. doi: 10.5535/arm.19117,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Bryans, R, Decina, P, Descarreaux, M, Duranleau, M, Marcoux, H, Potter, B, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with neck pain. J Manip Physiol Ther. (2014) 37:42–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2013.08.010,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Corp, N, Mansell, G, Stynes, S, Wynne-Jones, G, Morsø, L, Hill, JC, et al. Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines. Eur J Pain. (2021) 25:275–95. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1679,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Almushahhim, M, Nuhmani, S, Joseph, R, Muslem, WHA, and Abualait, T. Short-term effects of dry needling with a standard exercise program on pain and quality of life in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain. J Clin Med. (2022) 11. doi: 10.3390/jcm11206167,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Pach, D, Piper, M, Lotz, F, Reinhold, T, Dombrowski, M, Chang, Y, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Tuina for chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial comparing Tuina with a no-intervention waiting list. J Altern Complement Med. (2018) 24:231–7. doi: 10.1089/acm.2017.0209,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Liu, R, Kurihara, C, Tsai, HT, Silvestri, PJ, Bennett, MI, Pasquina, PF, et al. Classification and treatment of chronic neck pain: A longitudinal cohort study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. (2017) 42:52–61. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000505,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Gross, A, Kay, TM, Paquin, JP, Blanchette, S, Lalonde, P, Christie, T, et al. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2015) 1:Cd004250. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub5,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar