Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Sep;100(9):1726-1751. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.017. Epub 2019 Feb 22.

The Effectiveness of Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization in Athletes, Participants Without Extremity or Spinal Conditions, and Individuals with Upper Extremity, Lower Extremity, and Spinal Conditions: A Systematic Review.

Author information

1
School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Collaborative Program in Musculoskeletal Health Research, Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: gnazari@uwo.ca.
2
School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Collaborative Program in Musculoskeletal Health Research, Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
3
School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Collaborative Program in Musculoskeletal Health Research, Bone and Joint Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) to other treatments or placebo in athletes or participants without extremity or spinal conditions and individuals with upper extremity, lower extremity, and spinal conditions.

DATA SOURCES:

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro electronic databases were searched from January 1998 to March 2018.

STUDY SELECTION:

Randomized controlled trials of participants without extremity or spinal conditions or athletes and people with upper extremity, lower extremity, or spinal conditions, who revived IASTM vs other active treatment, placebo, or control (no treatment), to improve outcome (function, pain, range of motion).

DATA EXTRACTION:

Two independent review authors extracted data, assessed the trials for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool in included studies, and performed the rating of quality of individual trials per outcome across trials was also performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations guidelines.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Nine trials with 43 reported outcomes (function, pain, range of motion, grip strength), compared the addition of IASTM over other treatments vs other treatments. Six trials with 36 outcomes reported no clinically important differences in outcomes between the 2 groups. Two trials with 2 outcomes displayed clinically important differences favoring the other treatment (without IASTM) group. Six trials with 15 reported outcomes (pressure sensitivity, pain, range of motion, muscle performance), compared IASTM vs control (no treatment). Three trials with 5 outcomes reported no clinically important differences in outcomes between the 2 groups. Furthermore, in 1 trial with 5 outcomes, IASTM demonstrated small effects (standard mean difference range 0.03-0.24) in terms of improvement muscle performance in physically active individuals when compared to a no treatment group.

CONCLUSION:

The current evidence does not support the use of IASTM to improve pain, function, or range of motion in individuals without extremity or spinal conditions or those with varied pathologies.

KEYWORDS:

Health; Rehabilitation; Systematic review

PMID:
30797743
DOI:
10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.017

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center