Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

The effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization on range of motion: a meta-analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 319 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) on range of motion (ROM).

Methods

We performed a literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 23, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that compared treatment groups receiving IASTM to controls or IASTM plus another treatment(s) to other treatment(s) among healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or patients with musculoskeletal disorders were included. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

Results

Nine trials including 450 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. The IASTM was effective in improving ROM in degree in healthy individuals with ROM deficits and patients with musculoskeletal disorders (n=4) (MD = 4.94, 95% CI: 3.29 to 6.60), and in healthy individuals without ROM deficits (n=4) (MD = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.30 to 3.34), but failed to improve ROM in centimeter in healthy individuals with ROM deficits (n=1) (MD = 0.39, 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.11, p=0.66, I2 = 88%).

Conclusions

IASTM can improve ROM in degree in healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (with very low to low certainty).

Trial registration

The PROSPERO registration ID is CRD42023425200.

Peer Review reports

Background

Musculoskeletal disorders are among the most common types of human diseases and can affect all parts of the body [1, 2]. Surveys have revealed that musculoskeletal disorders affect more than a billion people worldwide, and are showing an increasing trend annually [1, 2]. Musculoskeletal disorders not only induce pain and joint adhesions that disrupt normal body movement but also have the potential to trigger mental health issues such as depression and stress [3, 4]. Range of motion (ROM) deficits are a critical predisposing factor and clinical manifestation of musculoskeletal disorders [4,5,6]. The effects and symptoms of ROM deficits are not limited to the joints and muscles directly affected, but may even involve other areas [7,8,9]. Consequently, improving ROM is seen as a crucial step in both the prevention and treatment of these conditions.

There are different ways of improving ROM, such as PRP and PRF injections, biofeedback, medications, physiotherapy, and surgery [6, 10,11,12,13]. Among these, physiotherapy has the widest range of applications. It can be used not only to treat patients, but also to treat healthy people [6, 14]. Currently, there are various methods used in physiotherapy that can improve ROM, such as stretching, relaxation and mobilization [6, 14]. Among these methods, instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is gaining popularity [15]. Soft tissues should be released based upon the principles of cross-friction massage and specially designed manual instruments [16, 17].

However, the efficacy of IASTM on ROM has not been consistently supported by clinical studies [18,19,20,21]. It is necessary to review these studies to evaluate the effectiveness of IASTM. To date, two meta-analyses, both of which were conducted by the same team, have concluded that the evidence does not support that IASTM could improve ROM [22, 23]. However, both of these studies have important limitations. Both studies presented analyses of individuals with or without ROM deficits simultaneously, which may underestimate the effectiveness of IASTM. They also compared the effects of IASTM with those of other treatments or placebo, which may have produced incorrect results. In addition, the use of minimal clinically important difference to assess the effectiveness of treatment is misleading when healthy individuals without ROM deficits are included. Therefore, it is reasonable to re-assess the effectiveness of IASTM on ROM. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of IASTM on ROM in healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

Methods

This meta-analysis followed the updated guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, 2020) and has been registered on the PROSPERO website (RegNo. : CRD42023425200) [24].

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) were randomized controlled clinical trials; (2) were healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or patients with musculoskeletal disorders; (3) compared IASTM alone to control or IASTM plus another treatment(s) to other treatment(s); and (4) had an outcome of ROM. We had no language restrictions.

Studies were excluded if the following criteria were met: (1) no mention of randomization in the text; (2) the described randomization was nonrandom; or (3) lacked outcome data of interest.

Information sources

Since instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is not a medical subject heading (MeSH), we expanded the entry terms to cover both instrument-assisted and manual mobilization. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 23, 2023, by using the syntax shown in Additional file 1. The references of published systematic reviews were examined to ensure the retrieval of all available studies that had been included in the meta-analysis.

Study selection

Two researchers (S. Tang and L. Sheng) independently carried out the study selection: (1) all retrieved studies were imported into EndNote 21 software (Ceverbridge Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), and duplicates were removed; (2) clearly irrelevant studies were judged by the title and abstract and excluded; and (3) the full texts of relevant studies were then retrieved, and the final included studies met both the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In cases of disagreement, a consensus was reached through discussion.

Data extraction

We designed a pilot Excel form (by S. Tang) to independently extract data from five representative studies by two researchers (S. Tang and L. Sheng). The final Excel form was developed from the pilot form following discussion and modification. These two researchers independently extracted the data from all the included studies. The extracted data were cross-checked, and in the case of any disagreements, a consensus was reached by recreating the process of selecting the study and calculating the data. Information on the study identification and principles of the PICOS (participant, intervention, control, outcome and study design) was extracted. The outcome data of interest were the mean difference (MD) and its standard deviation (SD) (or its 95% confidence interval, 95% CI) of ROM from baseline in two parallel groups.

The data for analysis were as follows: (1) for subgroup data from multiarm trials, the sample size was split by the number of arms; (2) for studies in which multiple measurements were used to assess the same outcome, only the most reliable measurement was used; (3) for studies in which multiple outcomes (except inversion and eversion of the ankle due to the small data) were used for the relevant outcomes, and the sample size was averaged based on the number of outcomes; (4) for studies in which only the outcome at the end of the treatment was used but not the intermediate measurements or those during follow-up were used; and (5) for studies in which the MD and SD from baseline were not reported, we converted from the CI and standard errors (SE), when available, by using the calculator provided in RevMan 5.4 (the Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). If no outcome data were available, we contacted the authors through emails for their research results. If data from the study authors were unavailable, the data were estimated by using the data from other studies. The following formulas were used for extrapolation [25]:

$${\text{R=}}\frac{{\text{SDbaseline}}^{2}{\text{+SDfinal}}^{2}-{\text{SDchange}}^{2}}{\text{2*SDbaseline*SDfinal}}$$
(1)
$${\text{SDchange=}}\sqrt{{\text{SDbaseline}}^{2}{\text{+SDfinal}}^{2}{\text{-2*R*SDbaseline*SDfinal}}}$$
(2)

Assessment of the risk of bias

Two researchers (S. Tang and J. Xia) independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies (see Additional file 2). In cases of disagreement, a third researcher (L. Sheng) participated in the discussion and reached a consensus. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Each of the seven risk of bias domains was rated as “low”, “unclear”, or “high” [26]. The other bias and overall risk of the study were assessed using the method employed by Goris et al. [23] The other bias was defined as studies published in suspected predatory journals, as identified by Manca et al. [27] The overall risk of bias was as follows: if all risk of bias was rated as low, then the study was rated as low risk; if at least one of the risk of bias was rated as unclear, then the study was rated as unclear risk; and if at least one of the risk of bias was rated as high, then the study was rated as high risk [23]. Considering the nature of the IASTM intervention, if a study merely had a high risk of bias due to the blinding of participants and personnel, the study was not rated as high risk. Instead, it was rated as either low risk (if the remaining six domains were rated as low risk) or unclear risk (if one or more of the remaining six domains were rated as unclear risk) [22, 23].

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed by using Review Manager 5.4 (the Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) and Stata 14 (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA). Heterogeneity was estimated by using the Cochran Q and I2 indices. If P ≥ 0.1 and I2 ≤ 50%, indicating low heterogeneity, the fixed effects model was used; if P < 0.1 and I2> 50%, indicating significant heterogeneity, the random-effects model was applied [25]. The mean difference and 95% CI are reported for the synthesized data in the forest plot. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to intervention methods (combined therapies or IASTM alone). Due to the limited number of studies included, publication bias was not evaluated [25]. Sensitivity analyses were performed using leave-one-out tests to confirm the stability of the results [25].

Results

Study selection

A total of 8356 articles were identified: 2830 from PubMed, 2412 from Embase, 1365 from Web of Science, and 1749 from the Cochrane Library. No additional studies were identified from other sources. After removing duplications, 5076 articles remained, and 4996 clearly irrelevant studies were excluded based on the titles and abstracts. The full texts of the remaining 80 articles were retrieved and read carefully. Ultimately, a total of 10 studies that met both the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Two different studies published by the same author used overlapping data [31, 32], we excluded the study published in 2017 [32] (we thought the data in this piece extended from the 2015 study [31, 32]) and analyzed the data from the remaining 9 studies (Fig. 1) [28,29,30,31, 33,34,35,36,37].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study selection process

Full size image

Study characteristics

The 9 included studies were published between 2012 and 2022 and involved a total of 522 participants [28,29,30,31, 33,34,35,36,37]. The age of the study participants was not described in one of the studies [35], whereas the remaining 8 studies had an average age of 27.17 ± 10.96 years [28,29,30,31, 33, 34, 36, 37]. Two studies did not provide information about the gender of the participants [30, 34]. Among the remaining 7 studies, the proportion of male participants was 61.67% [28, 29, 31, 33, 35,36,37]. Regarding study characteristics, 4 studies focused on healthy individuals without ROM deficits [30, 33, 34, 36], 3 studies focused on healthy individuals with ROM deficits [31, 35, 37], and 2 studies included patients with musculoskeletal disorders [28, 29]. Additionally, 6 studies treated only one session [30, 31, 33,34,35,36], while 3 studies treated multiple sessions [28, 29, 37]. Furthermore, only IASTM was used in 2 studies [33, 34], combined therapies were used in 6 studies [28,29,30,31, 36, 37], and one study included both alone and in combination [35]. Eight studies of ROM used degrees as a unit of measurement [28,29,30,31, 33, 34, 36, 37], while 1 study used centimeters (assessed by the lunge test) [35]. A summary of the 9 studies is shown in Table 1 (at the end of the paper).

Table 1 Summary of included studies
Full size table

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias assessment of the 9 studies is presented in Fig. 2. From the overall risk of the study, one study was rated as low risk [28], seven studies were rated as unclear risk [29,30,31, 33,34,35,36], and one study was rated as high risk [37].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias summary

Full size image

Outcomes

Effect of IASTM on ROM in healthy individuals with ROM deficits and patients with musculoskeletal disorders (in degree)

Considering that both patients with musculoskeletal disorders and healthy people with ROM deficits have ROM limitations, we analyzed these two factors together. Collectively (trials=4), 88 participants were in the IASTM treatment group, and 86 participants were in the control group. All 4 studies compared IASTM plus other treatment(s) to other treatment(s) (two studies used conventional treatments as the other treatments, and the other two used stretching as the other treatment) [28, 29, 31, 37]. IASTM significantly improved ROM (MD = 4.94, 95% CI: 3.29 to 6.60, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3). Sensitivity analyses showed stable results (see Additional file 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the effect of IASTM on ROM in ROM deficits individuals (in degree)

Full size image

Effect of IASTM on ROM in healthy individuals without ROM deficits (in degree)

Collectively (trials=4), 64 participants were in the IASTM treatment group, and 65 participants were in the control group. IASTM significantly improved ROM (MD = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.30 to 3.34, p < 0.00001, I2 = 5%) (Fig. 4). Sensitivity analyses showed stable results (see Additional file 4). Of the 4 studies, two compared IASTM alone with controls, while the other two compared IASTM plus other treatments with other treatments (the other treatments were kinetic flossing and step taps) [30, 33, 34, 36]. The subgroup analyses indicated that IASTM could significantly improve ROM when IASTM alone was used (MD = 2.99, 95% CI: 1.04 to 4.93, p = 0.003, I2 = 16%) or when combined therapies were used (MD = 2.07, 95% CI: 0.87 to 3.26, p = 0.0007, I2 = 12%) (see Additional file 5).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of the effect of IASTM on ROM in ROM unlimited individuals (in degree)

Full size image

Effect of IASTM on ROM in healthy individuals with ROM deficits (in centimeter)

Collectively (trials=1), 70 participants were in the IASTM treatment group, and 77 participants were in the control group. The pooled results indicated that IASTM could not improve ROM (MD = 0.39, 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.11, p = 0.66, I2 = 88%) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of the effect of IASTM on ROM in ROM deficits individuals (in centimeter)

Full size image

Discussion

The results of our study showed that IASTM could improve ROM in degree in healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

In recent years, researchers have investigated the impact of IASTM on ROM from various angles. Cheatham et al. [15] conducted an online survey of 853 members of the National Athletic Trainers' Association and the American Physical Therapy Association and found that the majority of respondents believed that IASTM improved ROM. Brandl et al. [38] reported that the bioimpedance of tissues increases after IASTM, suggesting that IASTM reduces the water content of tissues. Then, the tissue may gain more water through a delayed supercompensatory effect [39], thereby increasing the flexibility of the tissue. The results of these two studies, as well as our results in degree, indicated that IASTM improves ROM. However, we only had very low to low certainty based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scores [40], with downgrading for study limitations, imprecision, and publication bias. As a result, more high-quality randomized controlled studies are needed in the future.

To date, two meta-analyses have investigated the impact of IASTM on ROM [22, 23]. Both studies reported that IASTM did not improve ROM [22, 23], which contrasts with our results in degree. This discrepancy may be attributed to the use of distinct inclusion and exclusion criteria, and effect indicators. Previous meta-analyses included studies comparing IASTM with other treatments or placebo and found no significant difference between the two by combining the data as a basis for the conclusion that IASTM did not improve ROM [22, 23]. However, the possibility that both interventions were effective was ignored. We included only studies comparing IASTM with controls and IASTM plus other treatments with other treatments, and the combined results in degree merging both supported IASTM, with a significant difference in p-values. Previous studies have also shown that some of the results of the included studies presented significant differences in the Pvalue, but instead of basing the efficacy judgment on these results, the authors further compared the increase in ROM with the minimum clinically important difference and found that the changes did not reach the threshold, therefore, they concluded that IASTM was unable to improve ROM [22, 23]. In contrast, we used P values to assess the efficacy of the interventions because the included participants included individuals without ROM deficits. In addition, we excluded one negative study [21], which was included in both previous studies [22, 23]. The reason for exclusion was that we considered the randomization described in the text to be nonrandom. Therefore, previous studies may have underestimated the validity of IASTM, but our results were more accurate. Additionally, we included more studies (comparing IASTM alone to controls and IASTM plus other treatments to other treatments) and the quality of the included studies was higher than the quality of the included studies in the two previous studies (one study in our study was rated as low risk, while all the included studies were rated as high risk in the previous meta-analyses [22, 23]), which also increased the credibility of our results.

To our surprise, the results in centimeter showed that IASTM failed to improve ROM. The two sets of data were derived from the same study, in which IASTM alone was effective and combined therapies were ineffective. The authors of this study suggested that the results may stem from overloaded neurophysiological thresholds, which are exceeded by the combination treatment, diminishing the benefit of the treatment [35]. However, it is difficult to explain the results of our subgroup analyses among healthy individuals without ROM deficits, in which both IASTM alone and combined therapies were effective. Superficially, the two opposite results in our study seem to be caused by the different units of measurement. However, we still think that the more likely reason is the limited number of included studies. More randomized controlled studies in centimeter (including those at low risk) are needed in the future to assess the validity of IASTM on ROM and to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

This study has several limitations. First, only a few studies and participants were included, resulting in the inability to reach a definitive conclusion (including judging publication bias). Second, we lack sufficient data to perform independent analyses of combined therapies and IASTM alone, and we lack adequate data to analyze the effects of different treatment durations on treatment outcomes. Third, only the outcome at the end of the treatment was utilized, with no consideration given to intermediate measurements or those taken during follow-up. Fourth, we merged two datasets from the same study due to the scarcity of studies, potentially compromising the independence principle in meta-analyses. Fifth, we split the sample size in some studies, which would change the weights of these studies in the evidence synthesis. Finally, several deviations from the original protocol were made during this study. We have updated the search date and expanded the literature search to cover all possible articles that met our study criteria. We also conducted unplanned subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

IASTM can improve ROM in degree in healthy individuals with or without ROM deficits, or in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (with very low to low certainty). More high-quality studies (including different units) are needed in the future to explore the effects of IASTM on ROM.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

IASTM:

Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization

KT:

Kinesiology taping

MD:

Mean difference

MeSH:

Medical subject heading

MWM:

Mobilization with movement

ROM:

Range of motion

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Chen N, Fong DYT, Wong JYH. Secular trends in musculoskeletal rehabilitation needs in 191 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(1):e2144198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021;396(10267):2006–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bitiniene D, Zamaliauskiene R, Kubilius R, Leketas M, Gailius T, Smirnovaite K. Quality of life in patients with temporomandibular disorders A systematic review. Stomatologija. 2018;20(1):3–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Figas G, Kostka J, Pikala M, Kujawa JE, Adamczewski T. Analysis of clinical pattern of musculoskeletal disorders in the cervical and cervico-thoracic regions of the spine. J Clin Med. 2024;13(3):840.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tooth C, Gofflot A, Schwartz C, Croisier JL, Beaudart C, Bruyère O, et al. Risk factors of overuse shoulder injuries in overhead athletes: a systematic review. Sports Health. 2020;12(5):478–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. George SZ, Fritz JM, Silfies SP, Schneider MJ, Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, et al. Interventions for the management of acute and chronic low back pain: revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021;51(11):CPG1–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Walczyńska-Dragon K, Baron S, Nitecka-Buchta A, Tkacz E. Correlation between TMD and cervical spine pain and mobility: is the whole body balance TMJ related? Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:582414.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Silveira A, Gadotti IC, Armijo-Olivo S, Biasotto-Gonzalez DA, Magee D. Jaw dysfunction is associated with neck disability and muscle tenderness in subjects with and without chronic temporomandibular disorders. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:512792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramazanoglu E, Turhan B, Usgu S. Evaluation of the tone and viscoelastic properties of the masseter muscle in the supine position, and its relation to age and gender. Dent Med Probl. 2021;58(2):155–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pietruszka P, Chruścicka I, Duś-Ilnicka I, Paradowska-Stolarz A. PRP and PRF-subgroups and divisions when used in dentistry. J Pers Med. 2021;11(10):944.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Florjanski W, Malysa A, Orzeszek S, Smardz J, Olchowy A, Paradowska-Stolarz A, et al. Evaluation of biofeedback usefulness in masticatory muscle activity management-a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(6):766.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Raeissadat SA, Ghazi Hosseini P, Bahrami MH, Salman Roghani R, Fathi M, Gharooee Ahangar A, et al. The comparison effects of intra-articular injection of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), Plasma Rich in Growth Factor (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA), and ozone in knee osteoarthritis; a one year randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hu J, Wei K, Xu Y, Chen L. Outcome of arthroscopic triple release combined with rotator cuff repair in the treatment of rotator cuff injury combined with frozen shoulder. Pak J Med Sci. 2024;40(3 Part-II):520–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Konrad A, Nakamura M, Paternoster FK, Tilp M, Behm DG. A comparison of a single bout of stretching or foam rolling on range of motion in healthy adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022;122(7):1545–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheatham SW, Baker RT, Larkins LW, Baker JG, Casanova MP. Clinical practice patterns among health care professionals for instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization. J Athl Train. 2021;56(10):1100–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Davidson CJ, Ganion LR, Gehlsen GM, Verhoestra B, Roepke JE, Sevier TL. Rat tendon morphologic and functional changes resulting from soft tissue mobilization. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(3):313–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Loghmani MT, Warden SJ. Instrument-assisted cross fiber massage increases tissue perfusion and alters microvascular morphology in the vicinity of healing knee ligaments. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2013;13:240.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gupta U, Sharma A, Rizvi MR, Alqahtani MM, Ahmad F, Kashoo FZ, et al. Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique versus static stretching in patients with pronated dominant foot: a comparison in effectiveness on flexibility, foot posture, foot function index, and dynamic balance. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(6):785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahmood T, Afzal W, Ahmad U, Arif MA, Ahmad A. Comparative effectiveness of routine physical therapy with and without instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization in patients with neck pain due to upper crossed syndrome. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71(10):2304–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vardiman JP, Siedlik J, Herda T, Hawkins W, Cooper M, Graham ZA, et al. Instrument—assisted soft tissue mobilization: effects on the properties of human plantar flexors. Int J Sports Med. 2015;36(3):197–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stanek J, Sullivan T, Davis S. Comparison of compressive myofascial release and the graston technique for improving ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion. J Athl Train. 2018;53(2):160–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nazari G, Bobos P, MacDermid JC, Birmingham T. 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. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(9):1726–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nazari G, Bobos P, Lu SZ, Reischl S, Sharma S, Le CY, et al. 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. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45(10):1608–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Julian PT Higgins, Sally Green. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. UK: The Cochrane Library; 2006.

  26. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:5928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Mercuro G, Deriu F. Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(5):1051–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abdel-Aal NM, Elsayyad MM, Megahed AA. Short-term effect of adding Graston technique to exercise program in treatment of patients with cervicogenic headache: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021;57(5):758–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aggarwal A, Saxena K, Palekar TJ, Rathi M. Instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization in adhesive capsulitis: a randomized clinical trial. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;26:435–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Angelopoulos P, Mylonas K, Tsepis E, Billis E, Vaitsis N, Fousekis K. The effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization, tissue flossing, and kinesiology taping on shoulder functional capacities in amateur athletes. J Sport Rehabil. 2021;30(7):1028–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bailey LB, Shanley E, Hawkins R, Beattie PF, Fritz S, Kwartowitz D, et al. Mechanisms of shoulder range of motion deficits in asymptomatic baseball players. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(11):2783–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bailey LB, Thigpen CA, Hawkins RJ, Beattie PF, Shanley E. Effectiveness of manual therapy and stretching for baseball players with shoulder range of motion deficits. Sports Health. 2017;9(3):230–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ikeda N, Otsuka S, Kawanishi Y, Kawakami Y. Effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization on musculoskeletal properties. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(10):2166–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Laudner K, Compton BD, McLoda TA, Walters CM. Acute effects of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization for improving posterior shoulder range of motion in collegiate baseball players. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(1):1–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lehr ME, Fink ML, Ulrich E, Butler RJ. Comparison of manual therapy techniques on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion and dynamic single leg balance in collegiate athletes. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2022;29:206–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rowlett CA, Hanney WJ, Pabian PS, McArthur JH, Rothschild CE, Kolber MJ. Efficacy of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization in comparison to gastrocnemius-soleus stretching for dorsiflexion range of motion: a randomized controlled trial. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2019;23(2):233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schaefer JL, Sandrey MA. Effects of a 4-week dynamic-balance-training program supplemented with Graston instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization for chronic ankle instability. J Sport Rehabil. 2012;21(4):313–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brandl A, Egner C, Schwarze M, Reer R, Schmidt T, Schleip R. Immediate effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization on hydration content in lumbar myofascial tissues: a quasi-experiment. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Schleip R, Duerselen L, Vleeming A, Naylor IL, Lehmann-Horn F, Zorn A, et al. Strain hardening of fascia: static stretching of dense fibrous connective tissues can induce a temporary stiffness increase accompanied by enhanced matrix hydration. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16(1):94–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Fourth Rehabilitation Hospital of Shanghai, No. 995 Kangding Road, Jing’an District, Shanghai, 200000, China

    Sien Tang, Li Sheng, Jinming Xia, Bing Xu & Peiyong Jin

Authors
  1. Sien Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinming Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bing Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peiyong Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SE T planned the study, performed the data extraction and statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript; SE T, and LS extracted the data; SE T, and JM X assessed the risk of bias; and BX and PY J reviewed the included studies, extracted the data and performed the statistical analysis. All the authors have read the manuscript and approved it for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sien Tang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, S., Sheng, L., Xia, J. et al. The effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization on range of motion: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 319 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07452-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07452-8

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us