Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-10 | Page 18

Y. Sheng et al.
Fig. 4. Forest plot of efficacy evaluation on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (kinesio tape vs other physical therapy groups).
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis included 8 eligible studies that were
relevant to the evaluation of efficacy of KT on pain
relief and ADL progress for patients with CNSLBP.
KT was found to be superior to other conventional
therapies (e.g. physical therapy (combined massage,
strength training and endurance training), acupuncture,
or high- + medium-frequency electric therapy) applied
to CNSLBP, with significantly decreased VAS and
ODI scores.
The findings of the current study indicate that KT
is superior to other methods, including no taping,
738
Fig. 5. Results of sensitivity analysis for visual analogue scale (VAS)
after omitting each study one at a time. CI: confidence interval.
acupuncture and other general physical therapy met-
hods, for CNSLBP patient treatment, with reduced
VAS and ODI. Similarly, Kelle et al. demonstrated a
significant improvement in pain control in a KT group
compared with a control group for patients with acute
non-specific low back pain (29). A RCT study con-
ducted by Forozeshfard et al. demonstrated that KT
significantly reduces pain and functional disability
in young females with menstrual low back pain (30).
Moreover, it has been reported that application of KT
results in a significant reduction in neck and low back
pain, as well as disability indexes in surgeons with
musculoskeletal pain (31).
Fig. 6. Results of sensitivity analysis for the Oswestry Disability Index
(ODI) after omitting each study one at a time. CI: confidence interval.
Table II. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence quality for each outcome
Quality assessment
Number
of studies Design
Number of patients
Other
Risk of
considera­
Effect
bias
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision tions
Experimental Control MD (95% CI)
VAS (follow-up median 4 weeks; less bias, better evidence] indicated by lower values)
8
RCT
Serious Serious
No serious
No serious
None
indirectness imprecision
ODI (follow-up median 4 weeks; less bias, better evidence indicated by lower values)
8
RCT
Serious Serious
No serious
No serious
None
indirectness imprecision
Quality Importance
258 278 1.22 lower (1.49 to Low
0.96 lower) Important
258 278 7.11 lower (8.7 to
5.51 lower) Important
Low
95% CI: 95% confidence interval; ODI: Oswestry Disability Index; VAS: visual analogue scale; MD: mean difference; RCT: Randomized trials.
www.medicaljournals.se/jrm