West Chester University, Pennsylvania.
J Athl Train. 2019 Jul;54(7):808-821. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-481-17. Epub 2019 Jul 19.
To determine the overall effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) in improving range of motion (ROM), pain, strength, and patient-reported function in order to provide recommendations for use. We also sought to examine the influence of IASTM on injured and healthy participants, body part treated, and product used.
We searched the Academic Search Premier, Alt Healthwatch, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE with full text, NLM PubMed, Physical Education Index, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), SPORTDiscus with full text, and Web of Science databases for articles published from 1997 through 2016. The Boolean string was used.
Included articles were randomized controlled trials that measured ROM, pain, strength, or patient-reported function and compared IASTM treatment with at least 1 other group.
Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Four independent reviewers assessed study quality using the PEDro and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine scales. Twelve articles were included in the effect-size analysis.
The average PEDro score for studies of uninjured participants was 5.83 (range = 5 to 7) and that for studies of injured participants was 5.86 (range = 3 to 7). Large effect sizes were found in outcomes for ROM (uninjured participants), pain (injured participants), and patient-reported function (injured participants). The different IASTM tools used in these studies revealed similar effect sizes in the various outcomes.
The current literature provides support for IASTM in improving ROM in uninjured individuals as well as pain and patient-reported function (or both) in injured patients. More high-quality research involving a larger variety of patients and products is needed to further substantiate and allow for generalization of these findings.
确定仪器辅助软组织松解术（IASTM）在改善运动范围（ROM）、疼痛、力量和患者报告功能方面的总体效果，以便为其使用提供建议。我们还试图研究 IASTM 对受伤和健康参与者、治疗身体部位和使用产品的影响。
我们从 1997 年至 2016 年在学术搜索高级版、替代健康观察、CINAHL 完整数据库、Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE 全文、NLM PubMed、体育教育索引、物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）、SPORTDiscus 全文和 Web of Science 数据库中搜索了文章。使用了布尔字符串 。
纳入的文章为随机对照试验，测量 ROM、疼痛、力量或患者报告功能，并将 IASTM 治疗与至少 1 个其他组进行比较。
符合纳入标准的文章有 13 篇。4 名独立审查员使用 PEDro 和循证医学中心量表评估了研究质量。12 篇文章纳入了效应大小分析。
未受伤参与者研究的平均 PEDro 评分为 5.83（范围=5-7），受伤参与者研究的平均 PEDro 评分为 5.86（范围=3-7）。ROM（未受伤参与者）、疼痛（受伤参与者）和患者报告功能（受伤参与者）的结果发现了较大的效应量。这些研究中使用的不同 IASTM 工具在各个结果中显示出相似的效应量。
目前的文献为 IASTM 在改善未受伤个体的 ROM 以及受伤患者的疼痛和患者报告功能（或两者兼而有之）提供了支持。需要更多高质量的研究，涉及更多种类的患者和产品，以进一步证实和推广这些发现。
