English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To critically appraise randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilisation (IASTM) and quantify the effects of IASTM compared with other treatment in individuals with or without pathologies on function, pain, and range of motion. We search four electronic databases from January 1999 to January 2022 and included RCTs of healthy participants/athletes and people with upper, lower, or spinal conditions, who received IASTM versus other active treatment for clinical outcomes (function, pain, and range of motion). Forty-six RCTs were considered eligible for data analysis. Effects of IASTM plus other treatment versus other treatment on function and pain intensity were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful (very low quality, SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.66 to 0.09) and (very low quality, SMD −0.05, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.43) at up to one-year follow-up respectively. No clinically meaningful improvements were found on range of motion outcomes. Out of the 46 included RCTs, only 10 assessed and reported IASTM-related adverse events. Evidence of very low-quality certainty does not support the efficacy of IASTM in individuals with or without various pathologies on function, pain, and range of motion in the management of upper body, lower body, or spinal conditions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe included RCTs had a high risk of bias and were assessed as very-low quality evidence for all the included outcomes.IASTM does not lead to clinically meaningful improvements in function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions.The publication of IASTM trials in suspected predatory journals is increasing.The available evidence on IASTM does not support its use to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions.Health care practitioners should consider other evidence-based management strategies (physical activity and exercise) to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with musculoskeletal injuries and disorders.Given the rise of publications on IASTM in suspected predatory journals, health care practitioners should be judicious to examine the legitimacy of a journal when searching for evidence on IASTM treatment technique. The included RCTs had a high risk of bias and were assessed as very-low quality evidence for all the included outcomes. IASTM does not lead to clinically meaningful improvements in function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions. The publication of IASTM trials in suspected predatory journals is increasing. The available evidence on IASTM does not support its use to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions. Health care practitioners should consider other evidence-based management strategies (physical activity and exercise) to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with musculoskeletal injuries and disorders. Given the rise of publications on IASTM in suspected predatory journals, health care practitioners should be judicious to examine the legitimacy of a journal when searching for evidence on IASTM treatment technique.

disability and rehabilitation

Effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for the management of upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions. An updated systematic review with meta-analyses