To determine the benefits and harms of KT in adults with rotator cuff disease.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry to July 27 2020, unrestricted by date and language.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 trials with 1054 participants. Nine studies (312 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus
sham therapy and fourteen studies (742 participants) assessed the effectiveness of KT versus
conservative treatment. Most participants were aged between 18 and 50 years. Females comprised 52% of the sample. For the meta-analysis, we considered the last available measurement within 30 days from the end of the intervention. All trials were at risk of performance, selection, reporting, attrition, and other biases. Comparison with
sham taping Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether KT improves overall
pain, function,
pain on motion and active range of motion compared with
sham taping. Mean overall
pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no
pain) was 2.96 points with
sham taping and 3.03 points with KT (3 RCTs,106 participants), with an absolute difference of 0.7% worse, (95% CI 7.7% better to 9% worse) and a relative difference of 2% worse (95% CI 21% better to 24% worse) at four weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 47.1 points with
sham taping and 39.05 points with KT (6 RCTs, 214 participants), with an absolute improvement of 8% (95% CI 21% better to 5% worse)and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 40% better to 9% worse) at four weeks. Mean pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no
pain) was 4.39 points with
sham taping and 2.91 points with KT even though not clinically important (4 RCTs, 153 participants), with an absolute improvement of 14.8% (95% CI 22.5% better to 7.1% better) and a relative improvement of 30% (95% CI 45% better to 14% better) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without
pain was 174.2 degrees with
sham taping and 184.43 degrees with KT (2 RCTs, 68 participants), with an absolute improvement of 5.7% (95% CI 8.9% worse to 20.3% better) and a relative improvement of 6% (95% CI 10% worse to 22% better) at two weeks. No studies reported global assessment of treatment success. Quality of life was reported by one study but data were disaggregated in subscales. No reliable estimates for adverse events (4 studies; very low-certainty) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the sample. Comparison with
conservative treatments Due to very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain if KT improves overall
pain, function,
pain on motion and active range of motion compared with
conservative treatments. However, KT may improve quality of life (low certainty of evidence). Mean overall
pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no
pain) was 0.9 points with
conservative treatment and 0.46 points with KT (5 RCTs, 266 participants), with an absolute improvement of 4.4% (95% CI 13% better to 4.6% worse) and a relative improvement of 15% (95% CI 46% better to 16% worse) at six weeks. Mean function (0 to 100 scale, 0 better function) was 46.6 points with
conservative treatment and 33.47 points with KT (14 RCTs, 499 participants), with an absolute improvement of 13% (95% CI 24% better to 2% better) and a relative improvement of 18% (95% CI 32% better to 3% better) at four weeks. Mean
pain on motion (0 to 10 scale, 0 no
pain) was 4 points with
conservative treatment and 3.94 points with KT (6 RCTs, 225 participants), with an absolute improvement of 0.6% (95% CI 7% better to 8% worse) and a relative improvement of 1% (95% CI 12% better to 10% worse) at four weeks. Mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without
pain was 156.6 degrees with
conservative treatment and 159.64 degrees with KT (3 RCTs, 143 participants), with an absolute improvement of 3% (95% CI 11% worse to 17 % better) and a relative improvement of 3% (95% CI 9% worse to 14% better) at six weeks. Mean of quality of life (0 to 100, 100 better quality of life) was 37.94 points with
conservative treatment and 56.64 points with
KT (1 RCTs, 30 participants), with an absolute improvement of 18.7% (95% CI 14.48% better to 22.92% better) and a relative improvement of 53% (95% CI 41% better to 65% better) at four weeks. No studies were found for global assessment of treatment success. No reliable estimates for adverse events (7 studies, very low certainty of evidence) could be provided due to the heterogeneous description of events in the whole sample.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: