ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026
Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of its effects on pain, function, and range of motion.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMusculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of global disability. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) on pain, function, and range of motion (ROM) in patients with MSDs.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across seven databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PEDro, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) for RCTs on adult MSDs patients. Interventions included IASTM alone or as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation; outcomes were pain, function, and ROM. The Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis employed a random-effects model (RevMan 5.4, MATLAB-R2024), with subgroup analyses exploring heterogeneity by disease type, anatomical site, and intervention method.
resultsTwenty RCTs (n = 1420) were included. IASTM significantly reduced pain [SMD = - 0.84, 95% CI (- 1.07, - 0.61), P < 0.00001] and increased ROM [SMD = 0.80, 95% CI (0.41, 1.18), P < 0.0001]. The effect on function was marginal (SMD = - 0.48, P = 0.03). IASTM combined with conventional therapy showed more stable pain relief (I
conclusionIASTM is effective for pain relief and improving ROM in MSDs, with enhanced stability when combined with conventional rehabilitation, particularly for lower limb and spinal conditions. The heterogeneous functional outcomes highlight the need for more sensitive assessment tools and standardized protocols. PROSPERO ID: CRD420251117072.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.