The efficacy of kinesio taping as an adjunct to physical therapy for chronic low back pain for at least two weeks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Kinesio taping (KT) is a relatively new treatment method for chronic low back pain (CLBP). The effectiveness of KT as an adjunct to physical therapy (PT) for CLBP remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to critically examine and evaluate the evidence of recent randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of KT as an adjunct to PT for CLBP for at least 2 weeks. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Seven electronic databases including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Wanfang Data, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library were searched in September 2020 by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was performed with Review Manager Software. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials with a total of 676 patients were included in our study. Mean improvements were significantly higher in the KT+PT group than the PT group for pain score (SMD, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.37–1.08], P < .00001) and disability (SMD, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.42–1.59], P = .0007). Of 12 studies based on the pain score, 7 reported KT+PT patients to have significantly less pain at latest follow-up when compared with PA patients (P < .05). Of 11 studies based on the disability, 8 reported KT+PT patients to have significantly better improvements at latest follow-up when compared with PA patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Kinesio taping combined with physical therapy provided better therapeutic effects regarding pain reduction and disability improvement compared with physical therapy alone in individuals with chronic low back pain. Limitation: 1. Included studies and sample sizes were small and most studies were with moderate evidence level; 2. several important outcomes such as range of motion and distance walked were lack; 3. heterogeneity among the included studies was unavoidable.