Robinson Ramírez-Vélez1, Ignacio Hormazábal-Aguayo2, Mikel Izquierdo3, Katherine González-Ruíz4, Jorge Enrique Correa-Bautista5, Antonio García-Hermoso6. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarre, CIBERFES (CB16/10/00315), Navarre, Spain; Navarrabiomed, IdiSNA, Pamplona, Navarre, Spain. Electronic address: robin640@hotmail.com. 2. Laboratorio de Ciencias de la Actividad Física, el Deporte y la Salud, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, USACH, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: ignacio.hormazabal@usach.cl. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarre, CIBERFES (CB16/10/00315), Navarre, Spain; Navarrabiomed, IdiSNA, Pamplona, Navarre, Spain. Electronic address: mikel.izquierdo@gmail.com. 4. Grupo de Ejercicio Físico y Deportes, Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones, Universidad Manuela Beltrán, Bogotá, Colombia. Electronic address: katherine.gonzalez@docentes.umb.edu.co. 5. Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarre, CIBERFES (CB16/10/00315), Navarre, Spain. Electronic address: correab.jorge@gmail.com. 6. Navarrabiomed, IdiSNA, Pamplona, Navarre, Spain; Laboratorio de Ciencias de la Actividad Física, el Deporte y la Salud, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, USACH, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: antonio.garciah@unavarra.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kinesiotaping (KT), has emerged as an interesting and relatively novel method for treating musculoskeletal conditions. To date, none of the systematic reviews with meta-analysis have addressed the efficacy of KT alone (without any other intervention) over sham taping (ST). OBJECTIVE: The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of KT versus ST in patients with musculoskeletal conditions in interventions lasting at least 1 week on musculoskeletal conditions and functional performance outcomes. DATA SOURCE: Manual and electronic searches (CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PEDro) were conducted using kinesiotaping, strapping, musculoskeletal pain and musculoskeletal conditions. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on adults with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal conditions. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently carried out the search and the third author was referred to for arbitration. The methodological quality of the studies using the PEDro scale and GRADE approach. RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified and included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ST in adults with chronic non-specific low-back pain (LBP), KT resulted in superior effects on pain at follow-up, but the pooled pain in the immediate post-treatment period and disability scores (in the immediate post-treatment period and at follow-up) were not significantly different. Generally, all results were supported by low quality evidence according to GRADE criteria. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate inconclusive and low-quality evidence of a beneficial effect of KT alone over ST in LBP and knee osteoarthritis. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018084151.
BACKGROUND: Kinesiotaping (KT), has emerged as an interesting and relatively novel method for treating musculoskeletal conditions. To date, none of the systematic reviews with meta-analysis have addressed the efficacy of KT alone (without any other intervention) over sham taping (ST). OBJECTIVE: The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of KT versus ST in patients with musculoskeletal conditions in interventions lasting at least 1 week on musculoskeletal conditions and functional performance outcomes. DATA SOURCE: Manual and electronic searches (CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PEDro) were conducted using kinesiotaping, strapping, musculoskeletal pain and musculoskeletal conditions. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on adults with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal conditions. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently carried out the search and the third author was referred to for arbitration. The methodological quality of the studies using the PEDro scale and GRADE approach. RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified and included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ST in adults with chronic non-specific low-back pain (LBP), KT resulted in superior effects on pain at follow-up, but the pooled pain in the immediate post-treatment period and disability scores (in the immediate post-treatment period and at follow-up) were not significantly different. Generally, all results were supported by low quality evidence according to GRADE criteria. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate inconclusive and low-quality evidence of a beneficial effect of KT alone over ST in LBP and knee osteoarthritis. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018084151.