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.

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Interventions for Managing Adhesive Capsulitis in Patients With Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for managing adhesive capsulitis (AC) in patients with diabetes on pain, function, and range of motion. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and other databases were searched for studies published in the last 20 years. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed AC in people with diabetes and implemented 1 or a combination of physiotherapeutic interventions, corticosteroids, and manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: The Cochrane Risk of Bias was used by 2 independent raters who met to achieve consensus. The quality of trials was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Data extracted from the eligible studies included study design, participant characteristics and duration of symptoms, type of intervention, outcome measures, follow-up intervals, and research findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Because of the lack of similar interventions, a narrative synthesis was conducted, and meta-analyses were not performed. The effect sizes or between-group differences of the interventions were reported. A total of 8 RCTs met the inclusion criteria: 4 addressed physiotherapeutic interventions, 3 corticosteroid injections, and 1 MUA. The effect sizes for physiotherapeutic interventions were 0.8-2.0, 0.9-2.0, and 1.0 for ROM, function, and pain, respectively, with the largest effect size (2.0) being reported for joint mobilization plus exercises. The effect sizes for corticosteroids were 0.2-0.5 and 0.1 for ROM and pain. The between-group improvement for MUA was 5.6 points on Constant Shoulder Score. CONCLUSION: Low-quality evidence suggests large effects of joint mobilization plus exercises on AC in people with diabetes, although confidence in this conclusion is limited due to the high risk of bias. Even weaker support was available for corticosteroid and MUA. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to determine the best intervention for managing AC in patients with diabetes.