The Effects of KinesioTape on Pain
Mini Meta-Analysis Project
Kate Carter
Background: KinesioTape is a new method of treatment that is becoming increasingly popular, especially with musculoskeletal pain presenting as a chief complaint more frequently today.3,4 KinesioTaping is a technique that makes use of elastic adhesive tape, which is applied to the patients skin under tension to create skin convolutions.2 These convolutions, according to the creators of this technique, reduce the pressure in the mechanoreceptors that are located below the dermis.2 Most patients having any sort of musculoskeletal pain desire an immediate “quick fix” and they want to feel as if you are doing something to further treat the pain. Therefore it is important…show more content… PICO: Patients= General population experiencing pain with specific injuries, Intervention= KinesioTape, Comparison= Sham Tape, Outcome= Pain (Visual Analog Scale)
Hypothesis: The patients receiving the KinesioTape treatment will have reduced pain while the patients receiving the SHAM tape will have no treatment effect.
Search Strategies: The words that were used interchangeably and in different combinations within MedLine via the PubMed databases in this search strategy were “Kinesiotap*”, “ktape”, “therapeutic elastic tape”, “kt tap*”, “kines* tap*”, “pain”, “musculoskeletal”. For two of the articles I used the similar articles strategy, they were not found initially when using these search strategy words.
Studies Included in Analysis: GonzáLez-Iglesias et al 20091 is a randomized control trial with a level of evidence of I. The PEDro scale reported an 8/101. Parreira et al 20143 is a randomized control trial with a level of evidence of I. The PEDro scale reported a 9/10. Thelen et al 20084 is a randomized control trial with a level of evidence of I. The PEDro scale reported a score of a…show more content… SHAM tape was applied the same way in all three articles as the intervention just without the tension provided with KinesioTaping, which is what provides the therapeutic effect. GonzáLez-Iglesias et al 20091 had results that were significantly significant, but stated that the numbers were too small and possibly out of clinical significance1. Thelen et al 20084 did not have a statistical significance in its results having a standard mean difference of positive .074. Parreira et al 20143 was weighted very heavily and pulled mean of the results combined to produce no significant difference. (See Figure 1 below). Parreira et al 20143 had the smallest effect size at -0.16, but carried the most weight when computing the overall group effect because of the small standard error resulting in a relatively narrow confidence interval around the effect
