Effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping in musculoskeletal disorders: an overview of systematic reviews and evidence mapping

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness and clinical relevance of kinesio taping (KT) in musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) at different follow-ups. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence mapping. INFORMATION SOURCES: Ten electronic databases were searched for SRs published from inception to 31 December 2024, and updated on 15 October 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: SRs with and without meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they compared KT with interventions other than KT (eg, active interventions, no tape, placebo/sham KT) in participants with MSDs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were pain intensity, function/disability, range of motion, muscle strength, quality of life and disease-specific symptoms. The secondary outcome was adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 128 SRs (73 published SRs and 55 registered yet unpublished SRs) involving 15 812 participants from 310 unique RCTs were included. Substantial SRs were focused on lower extremity conditions (45%) and reported pain intensity (89%). Most SRs were evaluated as critically low (78%) in methodological quality and low (58%) in risk of bias, with a median total compliance rate of 75.6% in reporting quality. Findings from new meta-analyses indicated that KT may reduce pain intensity in the immediate (Hedges' g -0.69, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.57) and short (Hedges' g -0.57, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.37) term and improve function/disability (Hedges' g -0.54, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.40) in the immediate term. These effect estimates may achieve the predefined minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD (medium effect size). KT may show little to no effect on pain intensity in the medium term, function/disability in the short and medium term, muscle strength, range of motion, disease-specific symptoms at all follow-ups. The effects of KT may vary across subgroups or conditions, and its impact on quality of life is unclear. AEs related to KT mainly included skin irritation (number needed to harm (NNH) 173) and pruritus (NNH 356). All evidence was highly inconclusive due to very low certainty (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), non-significant level (evidence level) and unstable clinical relevance across most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is very uncertain regarding the clinical effects of KT on MSDs. Considerable heterogeneity, unclear clinical relevance and potential AEs may limit its application in clinical practice. Further high-quality, well-reported RCTs and SRs are warranted to address the uncertainty regarding overall effects along with comprehensive consideration of heterogeneity in KT usage. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517528.