Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey.
Clin Rehabil. 2020 Jun;34(6):723-740. doi: 10.1177/0269215520917747. Epub 2020 May 12.
To evaluate the effects of kinesio taping on shoulder disorders, as a single treatment modality or as conjunction to other treatments.
MEDLINE, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and OpenGrey databases were searched for trials published before 5 February 2020.
This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline statement. Randomized controlled trials published in English or Turkish were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. For analysis of continuous data, mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used. The I statistics was used to measure the heterogeneity.
Fourteen studies were included with 680 participants. Kinesio taping did not produce better results on pain compared to sham (MD by -0.77 (95% CI = -1.77, 0.22), = 0.13), exercises (MD by -0.51 (95% CI = -1.41, 0.39), = 0.27), or passive treatments (MD by -0.29 (95% CI = -0.77, 0.19), = 0.24). Similarly, kinesio taping did not found superior to sham kinesio taping (SMD by -0.01 (95% CI = -0.31, 0.29), = 0.94), exercises (SMD by 0.41 (95% CI = -0.25, 1.07), = 0.22), or passive treatments on function (SMD by -0.02 (95% CI = -0.19, 0.15), = 0.82). There was no significant SMD on range of motion (ROM) by -0.07 (95% CI = -0.47, 0.33, = 0.74) compared to sham kinesio taping and -0.06 (95% CI = -0.20, 0.09, = 0.46) compared to passive treatment. Overall, effect size was found small to moderate.
Despite reported positive effects in some studies, there is no firm evidence of any benefit of kinesio taping on shoulder disorders.
评估运动贴布对肩部疾病的疗效，无论是作为单一治疗方法还是与其他治疗方法联合使用。
MEDLINE、PEDro（物理治疗证据数据库）、Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science、Embase 和 OpenGrey 数据库对 2020 年 2 月 5 日前发表的试验进行了检索。
本研究根据 PRISMA（系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目）指南进行。纳入了发表在英语或土耳其语中的随机对照试验。使用 Physiotherapy Evidence Database 量表评估研究的方法学质量。对于连续数据的分析，使用均值差（MDs）或标准化均值差（SMDs）和 95%置信区间（CIs）。使用 I ²统计量来衡量异质性。
纳入了 14 项研究，共 680 名参与者。与假贴布（MD 为-0.77（95% CI =-1.77，0.22）， = 0.13）、运动（MD 为-0.51（95% CI =-1.41，0.39）， = 0.27）或被动治疗（MD 为-0.29（95% CI =-0.77，0.19）， = 0.24）相比，运动贴布在疼痛方面并没有更好的效果。同样，与假贴布运动贴布（SMD 为-0.01（95% CI =-0.31，0.29）， = 0.94）、运动（SMD 为 0.41（95% CI =-0.25，1.07）， = 0.22）或被动治疗（SMD 为-0.02（95% CI =-0.19，0.15）， = 0.82）相比，运动贴布在功能方面也没有显著优势。与假贴布运动贴布相比，运动贴布对关节活动度（ROM）的平均差异为-0.07（95% CI =-0.47，0.33）， = 0.74），与被动治疗相比，运动贴布的平均差异为-0.06（95% CI =-0.20，0.09）， = 0.46）。总的来说，效应大小为小到中等。
尽管一些研究报告了积极的效果，但没有确凿的证据表明运动贴布对肩部疾病有任何益处。
