Bone and Joint Institute
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
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
9-1-2019
Journal
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume
100
Issue
9
First Page
1726
Last Page
1751
URL with Digital Object Identifier
10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.017
Abstract
© 2019 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine 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.
