Abstract
Background
Lateral epicondylitis, commonly known as “tennis elbow,” is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting up to 3% of the population, primarily in individuals over 40 years old. It leads to pain and dysfunction at the lateral epicondyle, primarily involving the tendons of forearm extensor muscles, innervated by the radial nerve. Recent insights suggest a multifactorial etiology, questioning the traditional tendinopathy model. Neurodynamics, exploring nerve mechanics, emerges as a potential treatment approach.
Methods
A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines searched multiple databases for clinical trials investigating neurodynamic interventions for lateral epicondylitis. Inclusion criteria involved lateral epicondylitis patients receiving neurodynamic treatment, with pain, disability, and functional improvement as primary outcomes.
Results
Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Neurodynamic techniques, including radial nerve mobilization and home exercises, showed positive outcomes. Significant pain reduction, improved grip strength, and increased ulnar deviation angle were observed in several studies. However, heterogeneity in study design, follow-up durations, and small sample sizes limit conclusive evidence.
Conclusion
Neurodynamic treatment, particularly radial nerve mobilization, appears promising in alleviating pain and improving nerve mechanosensitivity in lateral epicondylitis. High-quality research is needed to establish its efficacy, considering the limitations in existing studies. A multidisciplinary approach and standardized patient inclusion criteria should be emphasized to advance the management of this condition.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Lateral epicondylitis, commonly known as “tennis elbow,” presents a prevalent clinical challenge in the field of musculoskeletal medicine [11, 32]. Affecting between 1 and 3% of the general population, this condition shows a higher incidence in individuals over 40 years of age and arises predominantly in the dominant arm [17]. Characterized by pain and dysfunction localized at the lateral epicondyle of the humerus, lateral epicondylitis results from a complex set of factors, ranging from mechanical overuse to psychosocial influences such as stress and anxiety [10, 25]. Pathology primarily involves the tendons of the forearm extensor muscles, innervated by the radial nerve, and presents symptoms exacerbated by flexion–extension and pronation–supination movements of the elbow or wrist extension against resistance [4, 6, 7]. Despite a tendency for spontaneous remission, lateral epicondylitis often follows a chronic course, with frequent relapses and a significant impact on patients’ quality of life [18]. Recent etiological insights suggest that lateral epicondylitis might not be solely a tendinopathy but rather a multifactorial process involving both intra- and extra-articular components, as well as psychosocial and systemic factors [15, 26, 30, 33]. In particular, the interactions between tendon mechanics and the neurodynamics of the radial nerve have raised new questions about the most effective therapeutic approach [5, 11, 12, 15, 27, 28]. Neurodynamics, which explores the relationships between anatomy, physiology, and the mechanics of nerves, is emerging as a potential innovative approach for treating lateral epicondylitis [19, 24, 38]. Exploring thoracic interventions highlights their role in modifying impingement parameters through improved neurodynamics and spinal alignment, potentially alleviating stress on the radial nerve [2]. The current state of knowledge underscores neurodynamic treatment as a promising yet underexplored avenue for lateral epicondylitis, revealing a gap in long-term efficacy studies and specific protocol outcomes [2, 34]. This gap forms the basis of our research question, aiming to delineate the effectiveness of such interventions. Through the use of neurodynamic tests such as the upper limb neural test 2b and nerve mobilization techniques, the goal is to re-establish the normal relative movement of the nerve and adjacent structures, potentially mitigating the symptoms associated with this pathology [8, 9, 35]. In this context, the present study aims to investigate the efficacy of neurodynamics in lateral epicondylitis, particularly in cases where the radial nerve plays a key role in the genesis of symptoms. The objective is to enrich the understanding [36] of the pathology and offer new perspectives in its treatment, emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary and personalized approach in the management of lateral epicondylitis.
Materials and methods
This systematic review was carried out following the methodological guidance contained in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [21].
The protocol was published in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD42023490857.
Research method
Search strategy
An electronic bibliographic search was conducted in eight databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro database. The P.I.C.O.(M.) strategy was used to formulate the research question of the review. The search was conducted up to January, 20, 2024 with no date restriction and no linguistic limits.
-
(((Tennis Elbow) OR (Tennis Elbow[MeSH Terms]) OR (lateral epicondylitis) OR (epicondylitis) OR (lateral elbow pain))) AND ((Neurodynamic*) OR (“nerve mobilization”) OR (“nerve stretch*”) OR (“neural mobilization”) OR (glid*) OR (slid*) OR (tension*) OR (Butler’s technique)) NOT Surgery
-
(Lateral epicondylitis) OR (Tennis Elbow)) AND (Radial Nerve)
-
“Tennis Elbow” OR “lateral epicondylitis” AND neurodynamic OR “nerve mobilization” OR “Butler’s technique”
-
(“tennis elbow” or “lateral epicondylitis”), (Neurodynamic or “Radial Nerve” or Mobilisation or physical therapy or “physical therapy” or treatment or tension or nerve stretch or “neural mobilization”) NOT Surgical
Study selection criteria
Inclusion criteria
Population: Patients suffering from lateral epicondylitis.
Intervention: Neurodynamic techniques, including both active exercises and passive techniques (direct or indirect, using sliders or tensioners) applied to the nervous system or surrounding structures.
Comparison: Any type of rehabilitative intervention.
Outcomes: Primary outcomes were pain, disability, and/or functional improvement. Disability was broadly defined, encompassing functional limitations, activity limitations, social participation restrictions, personal factors, and environmental factors. Secondary outcomes included quality of life measures, the range of motion (ROM) of affected limbs, and results of neurodynamic tests.
Study types: Clinical trials.
There were no time limits regarding the publication date of the studies to ensure a comprehensive search. Additionally, no restrictions were applied based on participant allocation methods, randomization, the number of participants, or knowledge of the treatment undergone.
Exclusion criteria
Observational studies, secondary studies, pilot studies.
Study selection process
The records retrieved from the database search were collected and imported to EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA). Duplicates were removed through the Endnote deduplicator tool. In the screening phase, two reviewers independently read all titles and abstracts, excluding articles that did not answer the research question. A third reviewer intervened to reach a final decision on the list of articles to be read in full text. The study selection process and the reasons for exclusion were recorded and presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1).
Data extraction and assessment
The methodological quality of the interventional studies included in the review was assessed by the researchers using the MINORS scale tool [23]. The results of the assessment were entered into a table, the fulfilment of the criterion was indicated with “yes” and the absence of the specific item in the analyzed study with “no.” Two independent reviewers, both of whom were experts in the field, were involved in the quality assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third reviewer with extensive research and practice experience was called upon to intervene. Training was provided by a third physiotherapist experiencedin research methodology. Summary tables and graphs of the extracted data from all included studies and a narrative summary are provided.
Data analysis
The reviewers independently extracted data from the studies and summarized them in a summary table. The following data were extracted: author, year, participants, treatment description, and outcome.
For the final analysis, we considered the “NA” items as items not reported and described by the authors.
Results
The research process in this study involved a thorough database search that yielded 212 results. After removing duplicates (165 in total), the titles and abstracts were screened. This step led to the exclusion of 30 articles that did not align with the inclusion criteria. During the full-text review phase, an additional 11 records were excluded. Of these, 8 studies were excluded either because they did not use neurodynamic techniques or because they were applied to conditions other than lateral epicondylitis. Furthermore, 3 studies were excluded as they only presented protocols of clinical trials that were not yet concluded. Thus, 6 articles (Tables 1 and 2) were identified to be included in the review. The entire study selection process was outlined in the PRISMA statement flow diagram([20, 21, 25, 28, 31, 39]; Fig. 1), which details the excluded studies and the reasons for their exclusion.
The screening process in the flowchart for the systematic review starts with a total of 212 studies found in database searches. Duplicates are then removed, leading to 165 unique studies. Titles and abstracts are screened next, eliminating 30 articles not meeting the inclusion criteria. The remaining articles undergo full-text review, with 11 more records excluded for reasons such as not employing neurodynamic techniques or focusing on conditions other than lateral epicondylitis, or because they were protocols of unfinished clinical trials. Following the detailed screening process, which involved removing duplicates, reviewing titles and abstracts, and conducting full-text examinations, the systematic review ultimately included 6 studies. These studies specifically met the inclusion criteria by focusing on the efficacy of neurodynamic techniques in treating lateral epicondylitis, thereby highlighting the focused and rigorous nature of the selection process to ensure the relevance and quality of the included research.
Yilmaz et al. (2022) [38] compared neuromobilization plus exercises with exercises alone in 40 patients. After 6 weeks, the neuromobilization group showed a significant reduction in pain (VAS) and improvement in ulnar deviation angle, with no significant differences in grip strength or DASH scores.
Heedman (2021) [16] examined the effects of neurodynamic treatment in 5 patients using an A‑B‑A design. The treatment, including neurodynamic mobilization and home exercises, showed improvements in ULNTT2b ROM, pain, disability (DASH, PRTEE), and grip strength in 3 out of 5 patients.
Dabholkar et al. (2013) [9] assessed neurodynamic treatment compared to exercises alone in 40 patients. The treatment group received radial nerve sliders plus radial head mobilization, achieving significant improvements in pain, pain-free grip, pressure pain threshold, and PRTEE scores compared to the control group.
Vicenzino et al. (1996) [37] explored the immediate effects of cervical manipulation in 15 patients through a repeated measures design. The treatment yielded a significant hypoalgesic effect, improving ULNTT2b ROM, pain-free grip test, and pressure pain threshold.
Drechsler et al. (1997) [13] compared neurodynamics plus radial head mobilization with ultrasound and massage in 18 patients. The neurodynamic treatment led to improvements in ULNTT2b ROM and functional assessment questionnaire scores, which were maintained 3 months post-treatment.
Arumugam et al. (2014) [1] evaluated the effect of a single session of radial nerve mobilization in 41 IT professionals. The results indicated a significant and immediate reduction in pain, suggesting the need for further long-term research.
The studies indicate that neurodynamic techniques, whether applied alone or in combination with other treatments, can significantly reduce pain in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Improvements in mobility and grip strength have been observed in some studies, yet not all have found significant differences in these metrics. The treatment effect varies based on the specific technique used, duration, and frequency of sessions, highlighting the need for further research to optimize treatment protocols.
The review systematically analyzed six studies to assess the effectiveness of neurodynamic treatments for lateral epicondylitis. Measurement tools varied across studies, including the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and upper limb neural tension test 2b (ULNTT2b) for nerve function. Results showed positive effects such as pain reduction, improved grip strength, and increased ulnar deviation angle in some studies. However, the impact on grip strength and functional scores like DASH was inconsistent.
Table 2 presents the calculated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for various outcome measures across six studies on the effectiveness of neurodynamic treatments for lateral epicondylitis. Cohen’s d is used to indicate the standardized difference between treatment and control groups, with values typically interpreted as small (0.2), medium (0.5), and large (0.8) effects. The table outlines the effect sizes for pain reduction, ulnar deviation angle, upper limb neural tension test 2b (ULNTT2b), range of motion (ROM), pain-free grip, and pressure pain threshold, reflecting the impact of neurodynamic interventions on these parameters.
Risk of bias
For this systematic review, the MINORS scale ([23]; Table 3) was chosen as the tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) is the sum of the scores for each item (ranging from 0 to 2 points each), with a maximum of 24 points for comparative studies and 16 for non-comparative studies. A score of 0 is given if an item is not reported, 1 if it is reported but inadequately, and 2 if it is adequately reported. Each study was then categorized according to the following criteria: for non-comparative studies, a cut-off of 8 was set to indicate low-quality studies, between 9 and 14 for medium-quality studies, and between 15 and 16 for high-quality studies. For comparative studies, the cut-offs were set at 14, 15–22, and 23–24 for low, medium, and high-quality studies, respectively.
The study by Kamil Yilmaz et al. (2022) [38] was assessed as high quality in all aspects except for the seventh criterion, due to a patient loss exceeding 5% of the total. It was also the only study to perform a prospective calculation regarding the size of the study (item 8). Four studies [1, 9, 13, 37] were rated as medium quality due to the lack of patient blinding, imbalances in baseline characteristics between groups, inadequate follow-up periods, or inadequate treatment in the control group. Lastly, the study by Linus Heedman (2021) [16] was evaluated as low quality due to the small number of patients assessed, absence of blinding, and inadequacy in the follow-up period. While this study had a robust A‑B‑A design, it was limited by a small sample size and lack of statistical analysis of the results.
Discussion
The primary objective of this study was to explore and analyze the evidence available in the literature concerning the effectiveness of neurodynamic treatment in patients with lateral epicondylitis exhibiting nerve involvement. In the patients who participated in the analyzed studies, improvements were noted both in muscle strength and in the scores of questionnaires assessing disability and the impact of the condition on daily life activities. The most substantial changes were observed in pain symptoms [22, 29] and nerve mechanosensitivity: indeed, all studies assessing pain or nerve dysfunction reported statistically significant improvements in subjects treated with neurodynamics compared to those who did not receive this treatment. Regarding the studies identified in the databases, the selected number was quite limited, as few met the pre-established inclusion criteria for this review. Additionally, one study [16] did not contribute significantly to the analysis due to the small number of subjects involved. The proposed treatment always focused on the mobilization of the radial nerve and, in some cases, additionally included the mobilization of the radial head [9, 13] and/or self-treatment exercises [13, 16]. The follow-up period varied across studies: in some, patients were re-evaluated immediately post-treatment [1, 9, 37], while in others, the periods were 2 and 6 weeks [16], with the longest being 3 months [13]. This heterogeneity in outcome evaluation periods made it challenging to compare the results. However, there was a relatively consistent choice among the studies in terms of selected outcomes. All studies focused on assessing pain (VAS, NRS, pressure pain threshold test), muscle strength (pain-free grip test, maximum grip strength test, pinch strength test), disability (DASH, PRTEE, other questionnaires), and nerve dysfunction (ULNTT2b). As stated in the systematic reviews “The Effectiveness of Neural Mobilization for Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions” [3] and “Neural Mobilization: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials with an Analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy” [14], it is not possible to conclusively determine that neurodynamic treatment is effective in treating lateral epicondylitis due to the high risk of bias in the studies, differences in the techniques used, and conflicting outcomes. Nevertheless, the study by Kamil Yilmaz [38], assessed as high-quality, demonstrated significant and lasting improvements in terms of pain relief and increased functionality in patients treated with neurodynamics. The other studies, despite being of lower quality, also reported statistically significant improvements in pain relief in the group treated with neurodynamics, albeit with short follow-up durations. This improved discussion provides a more detailed and structured overview of the findings, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the existing research on neurodynamic treatment for lateral epicondylitis. The clinical evaluation of the results from the studies on neurodynamic treatments for lateral epicondylitis indicates that these interventions may offer moderate to large improvements in pain reduction and functional outcomes. Given the challenging nature of this condition, which often resists conventional treatments, even modest improvements can be considered clinically significant, enhancing patients’ quality of life. The diversity in treatment protocols and the findings highlight the potential of neurodynamic interventions as either additional or alternative options for patients not responding well to traditional therapies. Despite the promising results, there is a call for more standardized research to validate these findings and optimize treatment protocols.
Strengths and limitations
This systematic review on the effectiveness of neurodynamic treatment in patients with lateral epicondylitis showcases several strengths and limitations. Its rigorous methodology, focusing on comprehensive literature search and selection processes, ensures a thorough examination of existing research. The inclusion of high-quality studies, particularly the one conducted by Kamil Yilmaz et al. (2022) [38] rated highly on the MINORS scale, adds credibility to the findings. The review’s focus on neurodynamic treatments provides valuable insights into this specialized therapeutic area, and the inclusion of diverse treatment approaches offers a broad perspective. Additionally, the use of both quantitative and qualitative assessments enriches the understanding of the treatment’s impacts. However, the review also faces limitations. Most studies included have a medium to high risk of bias, potentially affecting the reliability of the conclusions. There is a notable heterogeneity in follow-up durations across studies, complicating the comparison of long-term efficacy. The stringent inclusion criteria resulted in a limited number of studies being reviewed, possibly not fully representing the scope of existing research. Several studies lacked proper blinding and control groups, essential for minimizing bias in clinical research. Some studies had short follow-up periods, not adequately capturing the long-term effects of treatments, and small sample sizes, limiting the generalizability of findings. Moreover, variations in treatment protocols across studies, including differences in types and intensities of neurodynamic interventions, make it challenging to synthesize the results uniformly. Overall, while the review provides valuable insights into neurodynamic treatments for lateral epicondylitis, these findings must be interpreted with caution due to the mentioned limitations, particularly concerning study design and execution.
Clinical practice
The studies on the effectiveness of neurodynamic treatments for lateral epicondylitis suggest clinical significance, especially in terms of pain reduction and improved nerve function. While effects on grip strength and functional assessments like the DASH were inconsistent, the positive response to neurodynamic therapy, particularly radial nerve mobilization, underscores its potential in managing this condition. Further research is needed to optimize treatment protocols and assess long-term outcomes.
Conclusion
This review indicates that while neurodynamics shows promise in treating lateral epicondylitis, further research is required to conclusively determine its effectiveness, particularly in patients with specific nerve impairments. The studies reviewed provide preliminary evidence that neurodynamic interventions can reduce pain, but the results are varied due to methodological differences, small sample sizes, and a lack of focus on patients with nerve-specific issues. Future research should aim to standardize inclusion criteria and employ comprehensive diagnostic protocols to more accurately assess the benefits of neurodynamic treatments for different types of lateral epicondylitis.
References
Arumugam V, Selvam S, MacDermid JC (2014) Radial nerve mobilization reduces lateral elbow pain and provides short-term relief in computer users. Open Orthop J 8:368–371. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001408010368
B B, A A, A F, S A (2023) Effects of thoracic spinal thrust manipulation for the management of shoulder impingement syndrome: Systematic review. JPMA The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.5151
Basson A, Olivier B, Ellis R et al (2017) The Effectiveness of Neural Mobilization for Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 47:593–615. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2017.7117
Boccolari P, Pantaleoni F, Donati D, Tedeschi R (2024) Non-surgical treatment of oblique diaphyseal fractures of the fourth and fifth metacarpals in a professional athlete: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 115:109256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2024.109256
Casadei I, Betti F, Tedeschi R (2023) Assessment of muscle tone in patients with acquired brain injury: A systematic review. Motricite Cerebrale https://doi.org/10.1016/j.motcer.2023.09.005
Catellani I, Arcuri P, Vita F et al (2024) An overview of rehabilitation approaches for focal hand dystonia in musicians: a scoping review. Clin Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155231225705
Coombes BK, Bisset L, Vicenzino B (2015) Management of Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: One Size Does Not Fit All. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 45:938–949. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.5841
Cullinane FL, Boocock MG, Trevelyan FC (2014) Is eccentric exercise an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis? A systematic review. Clin Rehabil 28:3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215513491974
Dabholkar AS, Kalbande VM, Yardi S (2013) Neural Tissue Mobilisation Using ULTT2b and Radial Head Mobilisation v/s Exercise Programme in Lateral Epicondylitis. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy—An International Journal 7:247–252
Deniz V, Sariyildiz A, Buyuktas B, Basaran S (2024) Comparison of the activation and mechanical properties of scapulothoracic muscles in young tennis players with and without scapular dyskinesis: an observational comparative study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 33:192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.07.016
Di Filippo L, Vincenzi S, Pennella D, Maselli F (2022) Treatment, Diagnostic Criteria and Variability of Terminology for Lateral Elbow Pain: Findings from an Overview of Systematic Reviews. Healthc (basel) 10:1095. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061095
Donati D, Vita F, Tedeschi R et al (2023) Ultrasound-Guided Infiltrative Treatment Associated with Early Rehabilitation in Adhesive Capsulitis Developed in Post-COVID-19 Syndrome. Med (kaunas) 59:1211. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071211
Drechsler WI, Knarr JF, Snyder-Mackler L (1997) A Comparison of Two Treatment Regimens for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Trial of Clinical Interventions. J Sport Rehabil 6:226–234. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.6.3.226
Ellis RF, Hing WA (2008) Neural mobilization: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with an analysis of therapeutic efficacy. J Man Manip Ther 16:8–22. https://doi.org/10.1179/106698108790818594
G A, Pj C, Mb L, Sm S (2024) Interhemispheric Inhibition Between Primary Motor Cortices is Not Altered in Individuals With Chronic Lateral Epicondylalgia. The journal of pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2023.08.013
Heedman L (2021) Neurodynamic treatment in combination with manual therapy in patients with persistent lateral elbow pain : A Single Subject Experimental. Design (study)
Ikeda K, Yoshii Y, Kohyama S et al (2024) Pathophysiology of sex difference in refractoriness in lateral epicondylitis: Biomechanical study of wrist torque. J Orthop Res 42:277–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25684
Koru H, Yilmaz H, Yilmaz R, Karpuz S (2024) Comparison of the efficiency of peloidotherapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapies in patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Int J Biometeorol 68:101–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-023-02574-5
Marcolino AM, das Neves LMS, Oliveira BG et al (2016) Multimodal approach to rehabilitation of the patients with lateral epicondylosis: a case series. Springerplus 5:1718. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3375-y
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Qiu X, Yang Y, Da X et al (2024) Satellite glial cells in sensory ganglia play a wider role in chronic pain via multiple mechanisms. Neural Regen Res 19:1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.382986
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x
Taylor A, Wolff AL (2021) The forgotten radial nerve: A conceptual framework for treatment of lateral elbow pain. J Hand Ther 34:323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.05.009
Tedeschi R (2023) Unveiling the potential of trigger point therapy: exploring its efficacy in managing muscular spasticity—a scoping review. MLTJ 13:564–573. https://doi.org/10.32098/mltj.04.2023.07
Tedeschi R (2023) Can beneficial frequencies in physiotherapy help treatment? Scoping Review. Rwanda. Journal, vol 80. Medical, pp 88–94 https://doi.org/10.4314/rmj.v80i2.8
Tedeschi R (2023) Case report: integrating aerobic activity in post-surgical management of plurifragmentary distal clavicle fractures—a holistic approach to pain modulation and recovery. Int J Surg Case Rep 113:109024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2023.109024
Tedeschi R (2023) Assessment of postural control and proprioception using the delos postural proprioceptive system. Reabilitacijos Mokslai: Slauga Kineziterapija Ergoterapija 2:96–112. https://doi.org/10.33607/rmske.v2i29.1428
Tedeschi R (2023) Briser le cycle nocebo : stratégies pour améliorer les résultats en podiatrie. Douleurs : Évaluation—Diagnostic. Traitement, vol 24, pp 241–247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.douler.2023.10.006
Tedeschi R (2024) An overview and critical analysis of the graston technique for foot-related conditions: a scoping review. Manuelle Medizin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00337-023-01018-w
Tedeschi R (2024) Unlocking the power of motor imagery: a comprehensive review on its application in alleviating foot pain. Acta Neurol Belg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-024-02492-2
Tedeschi R, Berti L, Platano D (2023) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in managing pain and recovery: a clinical case of radial capitellum fracture. Int J Surg Case Rep 114:109120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2023.109120
Tedeschi R, Giorgi F (2023) What is known about the regentK regenerative treatment for ruptured anterior cruciate ligament? A scoping review. Manuelle Medizin 61:181–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00337-023-00953-y
Tedeschi R, Platano D, Melotto G, Danilo D (2024) Effectiveness of manual thoracic therapy in treating impingement syndrome: a systematic review. Man Medizin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00337-024-01040-6
Trudel D, Duley J, Zastrow I et al (2004) Rehabilitation for patients with lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review. J Hand Ther 17:243–266. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2004.02.011
Turolla A, Guccione AA, Tedeschi R, Pillastrini P (2023) Is clinical research as helpful to clinicians as it could be? Phys Ther. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad060
Vicenzino B, Collins D, Wright A (1996) The initial effects of a cervical spine manipulative physiotherapy treatment on the pain and dysfunction of lateral epicondylalgia. Pain 68:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(96)03221-6
Yilmaz K, Yigiter Bayramlar K, Ayhan C, Tufekci O (2022) Investigating the effects of neuromobilization in lateral epicondylitis. J Hand Ther 35:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2020.11.003
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation | Annals of Internal Medicine. https://www-acpjournals-org.ezproxy.unibo.it/doi/10.7326/M18-0850. Zugegriffen: 09. Juni 2022
Funding
Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
R. Tedeschi, D. Platano, G. Melotto, and D. Danilo declare that they have no competing interests.
For this article no studies with human participants or animals were performed by any of the authors. All studies mentioned were in accordance with the ethical standards indicated in each case.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Protocol registration
PROSPERO (CRD42023490857)
Scan QR code & read article online
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tedeschi, R., Platano, D., Melotto, G. et al. Effectiveness of neurodynamic treatment in managing lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review. Manuelle Medizin (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00337-024-01063-z
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00337-024-01063-z