The Clinical Significance of Mulligan's Mobilization with Movement in Shoulder Pathologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mulligan's mobilization with movement (MWM) is a manual therapy technique designed to address musculoskeletal pain and joint mobility. Despite immediate reported improvements by patients, the clinical significance of MWM compared with other interventions remains uncertain. To assess the clinical effectiveness of MWM for shoulder pathologies compared with other treatment methods. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were searched up to June 2024. Inclusion criteria were limited to randomized controlled trials published in English and Turkish languages, focusing on the MWM technique for shoulder pathologies. Two independent reviewers evaluated methodological quality based on the PEDro scale. Outcome data were analyzed for pain, function, and range of motion (ROM) using SPSS Statistics 29.0. Twenty-seven studies (1157 participants) were included. MWM demonstrated statistical superiority in function (, 95% CI: [-18.33, -4.16], = 001) and shoulder flexion and abduction ROM compared with other mobilization techniques. There was a significant MD in pain intensity, which was -1.55 cm (95% CI: [-2.60, -0.51], = 0.00), with high heterogeneity ( = 93%), favoring MWM in comparison with control group. MWM was significantly better for shoulder abduction ROM in comparison with physical therapy interventions (, 95% CI: [1.98, 26.90], = 0.02) with high heterogeneity ( = 90%) and control group (SMD = 56.67, 95% CI: [7.71, 111.63], = 0.02) with high heterogeneity ( = 96%). However, clinical significance was not consistently achieved. Although some statistical significance was found when comparing MWM with other her treatment methods, it was observed that most of the statistically significant data did not reach clinical significance. Upon closer examination, outcome measures that showed clinical significance, either the interventions in the comparison group were inadequate, not evidence-based, or the improvements within the group were not logical.