Ideally, effective treatment aims to resolve the underlying cause and restores the nerve root to normal function. Common conservative treatment approaches include physical therapy and chiropractic. A systematic review found moderate quality evidence that spinal manipulation is effective for the treatment of acute lumbar radiculopathy and cervical radiculopathy. Only low level evidence was found to support spinal manipulation for the treatment of chronic lumbar radiculopathies, and no evidence was found to exist for treatment of thoracic radiculopathy.

Therapeutic exercises are frequently used in combination with many of the previously mentioned modalities and with great results. A variety of exercise regimens are available in patient treatment. An exercise regimen should be modified according to the abilities and weaknesses of the patient. Stabilization of the cervicothoracic region is helpful in limiting pain and preventing re-injury. Cervical and lumbar support braces typically are not indicated for radiculopathy, and may lead to weakness of support musculature. The first part of the stabilization procedure is achieving a pain free full range of motion which can be accomplished through stretching exercises. Subsequently a strengthening exercise program should be designed to restore the deconditioned cervical, shoulder girdle, and upper trunk musculature. As reliance on the neck brace diminishes, an isometric exercise regimen should be introduced. This is a preferred method of exercise during the sub-acute phase because it resists atrophy and is least likely to exacerbate the condition. Single plane resistance exercises against cervical flexion, extension, bending, and rotation are used.

Polyradiculoneuropathy describes a condition in which polyneuropathy and polyradiculopathy occur together. An example is Guillain–Barré syndrome.

Treatment with a single course of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) infusions has been demonstrated to be a potentially effective treatment (reported to have caused prolonged remission in a case associated with systemic lupus (Systemic lupus erythematosus) ).

Functional and undifferentiated dyspepsia have similar treatments. Drug therapy decisions are difficult because trials included heartburn in the definition of dyspepsia. This led to the results favoring proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are effective for the treatment of heartburn.

Traditional therapies used for this diagnosis include lifestyle modification, antacids, H-receptor antagonists (H2-RAs), prokinetic agents, and antiflatulents. It has been noted that one of the most frustrating aspects of treating functional dyspepsia is that these traditional agents have been shown to have little or no efficacy.

Antacids and sucralfate were found to be no better than placebo in a literature review. H2-RAs have been shown to have marked benefit in poor quality trials (30% relative risk reduction), but only a marginal benefit in good quality trials. Prokinetic agents would empirically seem to work well since delayed gastric emptying is considered a major pathophysiological mechanism in functional dyspepsia. They have been shown in a meta-analysis to produce a relative risk reduction of up to 50%, but the studies evaluated to come to this conclusion used the drug cisapride which has since been removed from the market (now only available as an investigational agent) due to serious adverse events such as torsades, and publication bias has been cited as a potential partial explanation for such a high benefit. Modern prokinetic agents such as metoclopramide, erythromycin and tegaserod have little or no established efficacy and often result in substantial side effects. Simethicone has been found to be of some value, as one trial suggests potential benefit over placebo and another shows equivalence with cisapride. So, with the somewhat recent advent of the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) class of medications, the question of whether these new agents are superior to traditional therapy has arisen.

Currently, PPIs are, depending on the specific drug, FDA indicated for erosive esophagitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, eradication of H. pylori, duodenal and gastric ulcers, and NSAID-induced ulcer healing and prevention, but not functional dyspepsia. There are, however, evidence-based guidelines and literature that evaluate the use of PPIs for this indication. A helpful chart summarizing the major trials is available from the functional dyspepsia guidelines published in the World Journal of Gastroenterology in 2006.