What question did this study set out to answer?

This overview aims to evaluate the effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping in treating musculoskeletal disorders across various follow-up periods.

April 3, 2026Open Access

Effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping in musculoskeletal disorders: an overview of systematic reviews and evidence mapping

Key Points

This overview aims to evaluate the effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping in treating musculoskeletal disorders across various follow-up periods.
Reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses from electronic databases
Included studies with randomized controlled trials comparing kinesio taping to other interventions
Assessed outcomes such as pain intensity, function, range of motion, muscle strength, quality of life, and adverse events
A total of 128 systematic reviews with 15,812 participants were included
Kinesio taping showed moderate reductions in pain intensity in the immediate and short term
No significant effects on muscle strength, range of motion, and disease-specific symptoms were found
Most systematic reviews had critically low methodological quality and low risk of bias
Adverse events were primarily skin irritation and pruritus with varying severity.

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping (KT) in musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) at different follow-ups. Design Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence mapping. Information sources Ten electronic databases were searched for SRs published from inception to 31 December 2024, and updated on 15 October 2025. Eligibility criteria SRs with and without meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they compared KT with interventions other than KT (eg, active interventions, no tape, placebo/sham KT) in participants with MSDs. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were pain intensity, function/disability, range of motion, muscle strength, quality of life and disease-specific symptoms. The secondary outcome was adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 128 SRs (73 published SRs and 55 registered yet unpublished SRs) involving 15 812 participants from 310 unique RCTs were included. Substantial SRs were focused on lower extremity conditions (45%) and reported pain intensity (89%). Most SRs were evaluated as critically low (78%) in methodological quality and low (58%) in risk of bias, with a median total compliance rate of 75.6% in reporting quality. Findings from new meta-analyses indicated that KT may reduce pain intensity in the immediate (Hedges’ g −0.69, 95% CI −0.81 to −0.57) and short (Hedges’ g −0.57, 95% CI −0.77 to −0.37) term and improve function/disability (Hedges’ g −0.54, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.40) in the immediate term. These effect estimates may achieve the predefined minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD (medium effect size). KT may show little to no effect on pain intensity in the medium term, function/disability in the short and medium term, muscle strength, range of motion, disease-specific symptoms at all follow-ups. The effects of KT may vary across subgroups or conditions, and its impact on quality of life is unclear. AEs related to KT mainly included skin irritation (number needed to harm (NNH) 173) and pruritus (NNH 356). All evidence was highly inconclusive due to very low certainty (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), non-significant level (evidence level) and unstable clinical relevance across most outcomes. Conclusions Current evidence is very uncertain regarding the clinical effects of KT on MSDs. Considerable heterogeneity, unclear clinical relevance and potential AEs may limit its application in clinical practice. Further high-quality, well-reported RCTs and SRs are warranted to address the uncertainty regarding overall effects along with comprehensive consideration of heterogeneity in KT usage. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024517528.

Bookmark

View Full Paper