Foundation of Research and Evidence Based practice – Using Evidence Report

Part 1 – evidence selection

Mostafavifar, Wertz & Borchers (2012) conducted a peer-reviewed systematic review using level II studies to assess the effectiveness of kinesiotape as an intervention for musculoskeletal injuries. The article is a level I intervention study with high internal validity. The exclusion methods used were most rigorous of all three reviews. They excluded articles that addressed healthy patients or that failed to include a control group to then only include 6.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Montalvo, Cara & Myer (2014) also conducted a peer-reviewed systematic review of level II studies to assess the effectiveness of kinesiotape on patients with musculoskeletal injuries. This relates specifically to the chosen topic. Published five years ago, the information is relevant and is the most current out of the three articles. This article included 13 randomised control trials (RCTs), the most number out of the three articles, and excluded 67. Additionally, this review provides comparison between kinesiotape and other interventions such as traditional modalities which heightens its relevancy.

Williams, Whatman, Hume & Sheerin (2012) also carried out a systematic review of level II studies. It is peer-reviewed with a level I rating on the NHMRC hierarchy. The aim was to examine the effects of kinesiotape in the treatment and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in healthy and injured populations, relating closely to the chosen topic. Valid exclusion criteria meant they appraised 10 studies.

The three articles are level I studies according to the NHMRC hierarchy with high internal validity. They were obtained searching multiple databases. The authors of each article have high authority due to their credentials. Authority is strengthened as all sources are peer-reviewed and published in academic journals. Despite 2 of the articles not being published within the last 5 years, due to their relevancy to the topic question, the information provided is current and highly relevant. Montavlo et al. (2014) is the most valid source due to its currency, relevancy and comparison of kinesiotape with other interventions in treating patients with musculoskeletal injuries.

Word Count: 324

Part 2 – evidence summary

Musculoskeletal injuries are extremely common in today’s society, affecting 30% of all Australians (AIHW, 2017). With the high prevalence, musculoskeletal injuries place an economic burden on society, contributing to 12% of the total burden of disease in Australia (AIHW, 2017). It is estimated that there are 4.1 million encounters per year in general practice (Pollack, Bayram & Miller, 2016). The aim of this essay is to evaluate three high quality articles to determine whether kinesiotape is a suitable intervention for treating patients with musculoskeletal injuries. By analysing key results of the studies, it was seen that there was a common theme relating to the lack of research and positive findings of kinesiotape.

Although effective methods were used to analyse the outcomes of various studies, the reviews stated there is not enough evidence to decide whether kinesiotape is an effective intervention for musculoskeletal injuries. Mostafavifar et al. (2012) only included 6 studies as the rest did not fulfil their criteria. This study could not make any conclusions about kinesiotape as there is limited evidence and most studies reviewed “had small sample sizes, no primary outcome, no power analysis, and no long-term follow-up”. Montalvo et al. (2014) determined that “pain reduction achieved by kinesiology taping was no different from pain reduction achieved by more traditional modalities”. The systematic review used scales including the PEDro scale to limit bias in selecting articles, which quantified their results. 

Williams et al. (2012) did find that kinesiotape may have small benefit on strength and active range of motion, however further clarification is needed. They also noted that to ensure a higher methodological quality of the articles, “appropriate blinding of subjects and assessors, as well as the presence of a placebo taping group, is required”. All articles give an insight into the lack of high quality research that has been conducted about treating and preventing musculoskeletal injuries with kinesiotape.

Using available evidence, the authors noted that there may be benefits from kinesiotape in reducing pain with individuals that have musculoskeletal injuries. However, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Mostafivafar et al. (2012) found that the number of high-quality studies is limited. For example, there is a need for larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times to show effects. Despite Williams et al. (2012) showing benefits for strength and range or motion, they stated placebo taping groups should be given more attention. Furthermore, Montavlo et al. (2014) placed an emphasis on the role of a psychological response during the treatment of pain. found that kinesiotape. Therefore, kinesiotape “may function to reduce pain via the placebo effect”. Due to the low strength of evidence, it is difficult to evaluate any conclusions made.

In conclusion, through the evaluation of three high quality systematic reviews, the common theme was that there is not enough evidence to determine whether kinesiotape is a suitable intervention for musculoskeletal injuries. There are some findings that suggest benefits, however further research is needed to confirm. As a result, a conclusion cannot be made.

Reference List

4 references  1 for NHMRC to back up writing

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2017). The burden of musculoskeletal conditions in Australia (Publication No. 13. P1-28). Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/eed9f208-1d28-439c-aeb8-93509641fc72/20908.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Montalvo A.M., Cara E.L., & Myer G.D. (2014). Effect of kinesiology taping on pain in individuals with musculoskeletal injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 42(2), 48-57. DOI: 10.3810/psm.2014.05.2057

Mostafavifar, M., Wertz, J., & Borchers, J. (2012). A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping for Musculoskeletal Injury. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 40(4), 33-40. doi: 10.3810/psm.2012.11.1986

Pollack, A.J, Bayram, C., Miller, & G.C. (2016). Musculoskeletal injury in Australian general practice: 2000 to 2015. Sportsmedicine, 45(7), 462-465. Retrieved from https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2016/july/musculoskeletal-injury-in-australian-general-practice-2000-to-2015/

Williams, S., Whatman, C., Hume, P.A., & Sheerin, K. (2012). Kinesio Taping in Treatment and Prevention of Sports Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of the Evidence for its Effectiveness. Sportsmedicine, 42(2), 153-164. doi: 10.2165/11594960-000000000-00000