SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
The effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization on pain and function in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of micro-exercises for managing neck/shoulder pain in sedentary workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and percussion massage therapy in cervical disc herniation: a randomized controlled study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Visual monitoring in real-time improves consistency of 3D IASTM force applied to humans.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Observational
- Acute Effects of Muscle Flexibility and Myofascial Release of the Posterior Lower-Leg Muscles on Ankle Function in Individuals with Active Ankle Dorsiflexion Range of Motion Deficits.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of its effects on pain, function, and range of motion.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Myofascial release and fascial-targeted mechanical interventions in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: mechanisms, modalities, and integrative physiology.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Therapeutic outcomes of cryotherapy plus Graston Technique on pain and activities of daily living in individuals with knee pain.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Do Healthcare Professionals Agree with Delphi Expert Recommendations for Instrument Assisted Soft-Tissue Mobilization Precautions and Contraindications? An Exploratory Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Classification of musculoskeletal pain using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is popular in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, the current literature has produced varying results. The purpose of this study was to collect the most recent studies to evaluate the effectiveness of IASTM on pain and function in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
methodsThe researchers searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to February 25, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing treatment groups receiving IASTM combined with other treatments to those receiving other treatments among participants with musculoskeletal disorders. The outcomes were pain intensity, pain pressure threshold and function. The Cochran Q and I² indices were used to estimate heterogeneity. The data were analyzed as the standardized mean difference (SMD). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to rate the quality of evidence. Trial sequential analysis and sensitivity analyses were also performed.
resultsEleven trials (involving 427 participants) were included in the quantitative analysis. Six trials had a high risk of bias; three, unclear; and two, low. There was moderate-certainty evidence indicating that IASTM was effective in reducing patient-reported pain (n = 11) (n = 427, SMD = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.80, p < 0.01), and there was low-certainty evidence indicating that IASTM was effective in improving patient-reported function (n = 8) (n = 333, SMD = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.77, p < 0.05). Only one data point was extracted for the pain pressure threshold, and a meta-analysis was not performed. Trial sequential analysis revealed that the cumulative z score crossed the monitoring boundary for superiority for patient-reported pain in patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain and cervicogenic headache at the 4-week IASTM.
conclusionsIASTM can reduce patient-reported pain (with moderate certainty) and improve patient-reported function (with low certainty) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Future clinical studies do not need to explore the short-term effects of IASTM on patient-reported pain in patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain and cervicogenic headache.
trial registrationThe PROSPERO registration ID is CRD42024534643 (April 10, 2024).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.