Extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus Kinesio taping in treating musculoskeletal disorders: A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
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).

体外冲击波疗法与肌内效贴治疗肌肉骨骼疾病:一项grade评价的系统评价和荟萃分析。
背景:体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)和肌内效贴带(KT)被用于治疗肌肉骨骼疾病(mskd)。尽管支持证据有限,与当代康复方法不一致,但它们在实践中能够缓解疼痛和增强功能;然而,它们的相对有效性仍然不确定。本系统综述旨在比较ESWT与KT对mskd患者疼痛、功能、力量和生活质量(Qol)的影响。方法系统检索6个数据库中从建立到2025年6月的随机临床试验(rct)。两位研究人员独立筛选标题、摘要和全文文章。使用修订后的Cochrane协作工具(RoB 2.0)评估偏倚风险。采用RevMan 5.4软件进行meta分析,采用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)法评价证据的确定性。结果共纳入15项rct (n = 907)。比较分析显示ESWT和KT在改善疼痛方面无统计学差异(95% CI: -0.17, 0。41岁,p = 0.41),函数0.04(95%置信区间CI: -0.43, 0.51; p = 0.86),强度0.68(95%置信区间CI: -7.46, 8.81; p = 0.87),或生命质量(p > > 0.05)在短期内。然而,中期有利的ESWT治疗疼痛-1.15 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.78, p)其他:未收到本综述的资助。普洛斯彼罗注册号(CRD42024559635)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
6 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信