# Effects of Global Postural Re-Education on Pain, Functionality, and Range of Motion in Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

## TL;DR

This review examines if Global Postural Re-education helps reduce neck pain, improve function, and increase range of motion in people with chronic neck pain.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic review of GPR's effects on chronic non-specific neck pain, comparing it to other therapies.

## Key findings

- GPR improved pain intensity, functionality, and cervical range of motion in chronic neck pain patients.
- GPR showed comparable or better results than manual therapy or traditional exercises in some studies.
- No adverse effects were reported in any of the trials.

## Abstract

Objective: Although Global Postural Re-education (GPR) is widely used for musculoskeletal conditions, its specific benefits for this population remain unclear due to inconsistent findings across studies. This systematic review aims to analyze the effects of GPR on pain intensity, functionality, and range of motion (ROM) in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain. Methods: Computerized search was performed in the Cochrane CENTRAL, Lilacs, EBSCO, PEDro, Pubmed, RCAAP and Scielo databases using the keyword combination (“Global Postural Rehabilitation” OR “Global Postural Reeducation” OR “Global Posture Reeducation” OR “Global Postural Re-education” OR “GPR”) AND (“Neck Pain” OR “Cervicalgia”). Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. Results: Six studies with a total of 393 participants (322 women, aged 18–80) were included. The methodological quality was moderate (average PEDro score: 6.7/10), with frequent limitations related to lack of blinding and allocation concealment. Risk of bias was rated as “some concerns” in four studies and “high” in two. GPR was associated with improvements in pain intensity, functionality, and cervical ROM (flexion/extension). While three studies found no significant differences between GPR and static stretching or specific cervical exercises, the remaining three studies reported greater improvements with GPR compared to manual therapy or traditional neck education and exercise therapy. No adverse effects were reported in any of the included trials. Conclusions: GPR appears to be a safe and potentially effective intervention for individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain, particularly in improving pain, function, and cervical ROM. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its superiority over other physiotherapeutic interventions and to determine the optimal treatment parameters. PROSPERO registration: CRD420251068974.