## 3 Results  
Sixty students were approached to participate in our study. Of these, three declined to participate. The remaining 57 students agreed to participate and proceeded to data collection. During the study, 13 (22.8%) participants dropped out after failing the second assessment, culminating in a final sample of 44 participants. The participants were 68.2% women (\(n\) = 30) and 31.8% men (\(n\) = 14) with the average age of 22.34 \(\pm\) 2.06 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 21.76 \(\pm\) 3.07 kg/m\({}^{2}\). Analysis of the NMQ data allowed the allocation of the participants between the two groups. The control group (\(n\) = 23) comprised students without neck pain, while the neck pain group (\(n\) = 21) was composed of 4 th-year students with neck pain. Comprehensive sociodemographic information on the participants is detailed in Table 1.  
Both groups had similar neck strength at the baseline. At the end of the first semester, the neck pain group had less right lateral flexion strength than the asymptomatic group [t\({}_{(42)}\) = 2.83; \(p\) = 0.034]. The cervical strength in flexion [t\({}_{(42)}\) = 2.11; \(p\) = 0.165], extension [t\({}_{(42)}\) = 1.77; \(p\) = 0.302], and left lateral flexion [t\({}_{(42)}\) = 2.36; \(p\) = 0.101] remained similar between groups. In a within analysis, both groups increased their strength levels throughout the semester for all movements. Neck flexion [F\({}_{(1,\,42)}\) = 39.1; \(p\) < 0.001; \(n^{2}_{\text{p}}\) = 0.482] increased in the CG [mean difference (MD) = 0.417; standard error (SE) = 0.093; \(\{}_{(42)}\) = 4.48; \(p\) < 0.001] and NP groups [MD = 0.388; SE = 0.089; \(\{}_{(42)}\) = 4.37; \(p\) < 0.001]. Extension [F\({}_{(1,\,42)}\) = 69.0; \(p\) < 0.001; \(n^{2}_{\text{p}}\) = 0.622] increased in the CG [MD = 0.670; SE = 0.113; t\({}_{(42)}\) = 5.91; \(p\) < 0.001] and NP groups [MD = 0.633; SE = 0.108; \(\{}_{(42)}\) = 5.84; \(p\) < 0.001]. Right lateral flexion [F\({}_{(1,\,42)}\) = 31.1; \(p\) < 0.001; \(n^{2}_{\text{p}}\) = 0.432] increased in the CG [MD = 0.310; SE = 0.069; t\({}_{(42)}\) = 4.52; \(p\) < 0.001] and NP groups [MD = 0.225; SE = 0.067; t\({}_{(42)}\) = 3.36; \(p\) = 0.009]. Left lateral flexion [F\({}_{(1,\,42)}\) = 31.9; \(p\) < 0.001; \(n^{2}_{\text{p}}\) = 0.438] increased in the CG [MD = 0.296; SE = 0.075; t\({}_{(42)}\) = 3.97; \(p\) < 0.002] and NP groups [MD = 0.292; SE = 0.073; t\({}_{(42)}\) = 4.02; \(p\) = 0.001]. Figures 2 and 3 graphically depict these results, illustrating the comparative strength changes in each group for all movements.  
Table 2 presents the neck strength ratios of agonists to antagonists for the two study groups at baseline and at the end of the first semester, compared with established normative values for male and female individuals aged 18 to 35 years. Both groups presented ratios closer to the reference values after the first fifteen weeks of clinical practice.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Control (\(n\) = 23)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Neck Pain (\(n\) = 21)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} \\  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **(Range)** & & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **(Range)** & \\ \hline Age (years) & 21.8 \(\pm\) 1.92 & (20–29) & 22.9 \(\pm\) 2.10 & (21–30) & 0.082 a  Height (m) & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.08 & (1.58–1.88) & 1.68 \(\pm\) 0.10 & (1.54–1.92) & 0.180 a  Body Mass (kg) & 63.3 \(\pm\) 10.65 & (46–86) & 63.5 \(\pm\) 11.81 & (47–88) & 0.950 a  BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 21.2 \(\pm\) 2.11 & (17.6–24.6) & 22.4 \(\pm\) 3.82 & (16.9–35.3) & 0.212 a  & Male 43.5\% (10) & Male 19.1\% (4) & \\ Sex \% (n) & & & Female 56.5\% (13) & & Female 80.9\% (17) & & 0.082 b  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. BMI = Body Mass Index; SD = standard deviation; a  Student’s \(t\)-test; b  chi-square test.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.