Mariam Hesham Sallam, Marwa Shafiek Mustafa Saleh, Haidy Samy, Mazen Mohamed Sayed, Hadel Hesham Elkhodary, Mariam Ismail Hassan, Esraa Mohamed Mosaid, Maryam Jalal Abdelrahman, Eman Mohamed Abdelwahab, Abdelrahman Fouad Elshafey, Abeer Gomaa Mohamed, Yasmin Ahmed Baioumy, Farah Tarek Hamouda, Bashayer Awad AlHarthy, Ahmed Ibrahim Abdelhamed
{"title":"Extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus Kinesio taping in treating musculoskeletal disorders: A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mariam Hesham Sallam, Marwa Shafiek Mustafa Saleh, Haidy Samy, Mazen Mohamed Sayed, Hadel Hesham Elkhodary, Mariam Ismail Hassan, Esraa Mohamed Mosaid, Maryam Jalal Abdelrahman, Eman Mohamed Abdelwahab, Abdelrahman Fouad Elshafey, Abeer Gomaa Mohamed, Yasmin Ahmed Baioumy, Farah Tarek Hamouda, Bashayer Awad AlHarthy, Ahmed Ibrahim Abdelhamed","doi":"10.1177/10538127251384096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and Kinesio taping (KT) are used for musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Despite limited supporting evidence and misalignment with contemporary rehabilitation approaches, they endure in practice to relieve pain and enhance function; however, their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain.ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to compare the effects of ESWT versus KT on pain, functionality, strength, and quality of life (Qol) in individuals with MSKDs<b>.</b>MethodsSystematic searches of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were performed across six databases from inception to June 2025. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0). Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsFifteen RCTs (n = 907) were included. Comparative analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between ESWT and KT in improving pain 0.12 (95% CI: -0.17, 0. 41, p = 0.41), function 0.04 (95% CI: -0.43, 0.51; P = 0.86), strength 0.68 (95% CI: -7.46, 8.81; P = 0.87), or Qol (P >> 0.05) in the short-term. However, medium-term favored ESWT in pain -1.15 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.78, p < 0.00001) and function -0.89 (95% CI: -1.35, -0.42; P = 0.0002) over KT. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low.ConclusionsVery low-quality evidence indicates no difference between ESWT and KT in improving pain, function, strength, and Qol in patients with MSKDs in the short-term, with a possible medium-term advantage for ESWT in improving pain and function. Our findings should be placed within the context of limited and geographically narrow evidence. High-quality, long-term RCTs are warranted.<b>Other:</b> No funding was received for this review. PROSPERO registration number (CRD42024559635).</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10538127251384096"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251384096","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and Kinesio taping (KT) are used for musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Despite limited supporting evidence and misalignment with contemporary rehabilitation approaches, they endure in practice to relieve pain and enhance function; however, their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain.ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to compare the effects of ESWT versus KT on pain, functionality, strength, and quality of life (Qol) in individuals with MSKDs.MethodsSystematic searches of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were performed across six databases from inception to June 2025. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0). Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsFifteen RCTs (n = 907) were included. Comparative analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between ESWT and KT in improving pain 0.12 (95% CI: -0.17, 0. 41, p = 0.41), function 0.04 (95% CI: -0.43, 0.51; P = 0.86), strength 0.68 (95% CI: -7.46, 8.81; P = 0.87), or Qol (P >> 0.05) in the short-term. However, medium-term favored ESWT in pain -1.15 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.78, p < 0.00001) and function -0.89 (95% CI: -1.35, -0.42; P = 0.0002) over KT. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low.ConclusionsVery low-quality evidence indicates no difference between ESWT and KT in improving pain, function, strength, and Qol in patients with MSKDs in the short-term, with a possible medium-term advantage for ESWT in improving pain and function. Our findings should be placed within the context of limited and geographically narrow evidence. High-quality, long-term RCTs are warranted.Other: No funding was received for this review. PROSPERO registration number (CRD42024559635).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty.
In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.