Kinesiotaping (KT), developed by Dr. Kenzo Kase in the 1970s, is an elastic taping method designed to support musculoskeletal function without restricting mobility. It is thought to act through mechanical, sensory, neuromuscular, and psychological mechanisms that may reduce pain, enhance proprioception, and improve circulation.
Evidence indicates short-term benefits, including modest pain relief, improved range of motion, and temporary edema reduction. However, effects on muscle strength, long-term recovery, and athletic performance remain inconsistent. Study limitations—such as small samples, variable techniques, and placebo influences—restrict definitive conclusions.
Clinically, KT should be used as an adjunct therapy, particularly for pain, edema, or post-stroke rehabilitation, while further rigorous research is needed to confirm its efficacy.
Evaluating the Physiological and Clinical Effects of Kine- siotaping: A Systematic Evidence-Based Perspective
by Tobias Giesen | M.Sc. SEM, B.Sc. PT
1. Introduction
Kinesiotaping (KT) was first developed in the 1970s by Dr. Kenzo Kase, a Japanese chiropractor and physiotherapist, as a novel approach to support musculoskeletal function while preserving physiological mobility (Kase, Wallis, & Kase, 2003). Since its introduction, KT has gained widespread popularity across sports medicine, physiotherapy, rehabilitation, and even general clinical practice, largely due to its non-invasive nature, versatility, and ease of application (Williams et al., 2012). Practitioners and patients commonly use KT with the goal of alleviating pain, improving joint mobility, supporting lymphatic drainage, and enhancing proprioception. Its application spans a wide range of conditions, from acute musculoskeletal injuries and post-surgical rehabilitation to chronic pain syndromes and neurological disorders.
Despite its widespread use, KT remains a topic of debate within the scientific community. Evidence regarding its effectiveness is heterogeneous, and the physiological mechanisms underlying its purported benefits are not fully elucidated (Gonzalez-Iglesias et al., 2009; Most- afavifar et al., 2012). Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that KT may provide short-term relief in pain and mild improvements in range of motion, but its impact on muscle strength, long-term function, or athletic performance remains inconsistent (Zhang et al., 2019; Kandeel et al., 2025). Moreover, methodological limitations in existing studies— including small sample sizes, variability in taping techniques, and the influence of placebo and patient expectations—complicate definitive conclusions regarding KT’s efficacy (Nelson, 2016).
This review aims to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based examination of KT, encompassing its historical development, proposed physiological mechanisms, current research evidence, and practical limitations. In doing so, it seeks to clarify both the therapeutic potential and the scientific uncertainties associated with KT, providing clinicians and researchers with a critical appraisal of its role in musculoskeletal and rehabilitative care.
2. Historical Development and Background
Kinesiotaping (KT) was developed by Dr. Kenzo Kase in the 1970s in Japan as part of a broader therapeutic approach aimed at enhancing musculoskeletal function while maintaining natural mobility (Kase, Wallis, & Kase, 2003). At the time, traditional rigid taping methods primarily served to immobilize joints or restrict movement, which could inadvertently limit functional performance and impede rehabilitation. Dr. Kase’s innovation was to design an elastic tape capable of supporting muscles, joints, and fascia without compromising physiological motion, thereby combining stability with dynamic mobility.
The KT strips are composed of a thin, breathable cotton material coated with a skin-friendly, acrylic adhesive that reacts to body heat, improving adherence while allowing multi-day application even under conditions of sweating or light water exposure (Williams et al., 2012). The tape is longitudinally stretchable up to 130-140% of its resting length, which enables a range of tension-based applications to target specific therapeutic effects. For example, tension-free applications primarily aim to reduce mechanical stress on skin and fascia, whereas moderate or high-tension applications are used to facilitate weak muscles or provide support to hypermobile joints.
Over the decades, KT techniques have evolved to include multiple application patterns, such as Y, I, X, and Fan shapes. These patterns are strategically used to modulate muscle activity, support lymphatic drainage, or alleviate pain through mechanical lifting of the skin and stimulation of underlying mechanoreceptors. Applications may follow the direction of muscle fibers to facilitate contraction or applied transversely to influence fascia and soft tissue mobility (Hörmann, Kluge, & Kessler, 2020). Additionally, convolutions or skin “folds” created during tape application are believed to increase interstitial space, potentially improving microcirculation and lymphatic flow (Kase, Wallis, & Kase, 2003).
KT is typically worn for three to five days, depending on skin type, activity level, and tape quality, and is often integrated with physiotherapeutic exercises or manual therapy to maximize therapeutic outcomes. Clinical reports and observational studies have highlighted its versatility, showing applications across diverse conditions ranging from acute sports injuries and postoperative rehabilitation to chronic musculoskeletal pain and neurological disorders such as post-stroke spasticity (Sheng et al., 2019).
Despite its widespread clinical adoption, the technique has remained controversial, primarily because its physiological mechanisms were initially theoretical and only recently examined in controlled experimental studies. Nevertheless, KT’s global dissemination, particularly in sports and rehabilitation medicine, reflects both its practical appeal and the growing interest in non-invasive, patient-centered therapeutic interventions (Williams et al., 2012; Mostafavifar et al., 2012).
3. Mechanisms and Physiological Effects
Kinesiotaping (KT) exerts multifaceted effects on the human body, operating through mechanical, sensory, neuromuscular, vascular, and even psychological pathways. While many of these mechanisms remain under investigation, accumulating evidence provides insight into how KT may influence pain perception, mobility, and functional performance.
Mechanical Effects: Mechanically, KT is believed to lift the skin away from underlying fascia and subcutaneous tissues, thereby creating micro-lifts that reduce pressure on nociceptors, blood vessels, and lymphatic channels (Hörmann, Kluge, & Kessler, 2020). This lifting effect may facilitate interstitial fluid movement, enhance venous return, and support lymphatic drainage, potentially reducing localized edema and swelling. Experimental studies using ultrasonography and laser-Doppler flowmetry have demonstrated modest increases in skin perfusion and subcutaneous fluid dynamics following KT application, although these effects are generally small and transient (Kase, Wallis, & Kase, 2003; Williams et al., 2012).
Sensory Effects: KT continuously stimulates cutaneous and subcutaneous mechanoreceptors, including Merkel cells, Ruffini endings, and Pacini corpuscles, which are responsible for detecting pressure, stretch, and vibration (Zhang et al., 2019). Such stimulation can enhance proprioceptive feedback, improve joint position sense, and potentially modify motor patterns to reduce maladaptive loading. In addition, mechanoreceptor activation may engage the GateControl mechanism at the spinal level, inhibiting nociceptive transmission and thereby reducing pain perception (Kandeel et al., 2025).
Neuromuscular Effects: KT can modulate muscle activity depending on its application method. When applied with tension along the direction of muscle fibers, KT may facilitate underactive muscles, whereas tension applied across overactive or hypertonic muscles can reduce excessive activation (Gianola, de Oliveira, & de Almeida, 2021). Electromyographic (EMG) studies indicate that KT can alter muscle recruitment patterns, improve timing of activation, and potentially enhance motor control. However, these neuromuscular effects are typically short-term and context-dependent.
Vascular and Lymphatic Effects: By mechanically lifting the skin, KT may increase interstitial space, thereby supporting microcirculation and lymphatic flow. Evidence from thermography and laser-Doppler studies suggests small to moderate improvements in local blood flow and lymphatic drainage, particularly in the early phases of swelling or post-traumatic edema (Hörmann, Kluge, & Kessler, 2020).
Psychological and Contextual Effects: Patient expectations and the therapeutic context significantly influence the perceived effectiveness of KT. Positive expectations can enhance analgesic effects, improve engagement in rehabilitation, and contribute to short-term functional improvements (Zhang et al., 2019).
Summary of Effects: Overall, KT provides short-term pain relief, modest improvements in range of motion, and temporary reduction of edema in specific clinical populations. Its effects on muscle strength, long-term function, or athletic performance in healthy individuals are generally inconsistent. The observed benefits likely result from a combination of mechanical, sensory, neuromuscular, vascular, and psychological mechanisms.
4. Current Evidence
The clinical effectiveness of kinesiotaping (KT) has been extensively studied across various musculoskeletal, neurological, and postoperative conditions. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses suggests that while KT may provide short-term benefits, its impact on long-term function, strength, and performance is generally modest and often comparable to sham or placebo interventions.
Musculoskeletal Pain and Myofascial Syndromes: KT has been widely investigated for its role in managing musculoskeletal pain, particularly in myofascial pain syndromes. Meta- analytic data indicate that KT can provide short-term pain relief and slight improvements in range of motion (Zhang et al., 2019; Kandeel et al., 2025). However, improvements in muscle strength or functional capacity are inconsistent.
Low Back Pain: For chronic non-specific low back pain, evidence suggests that KT is not superior to sham taping or standard care over extended periods (Nelson, 2016). Short-term improvements in pain and mobility are sometimes observed, likely due to sensory stimulation or placebo effects.
Shoulder and Rotator Cuff Pathologies: In patients with subacromial impingement or rotator cuff disorders, pooled data reveal minimal to modest reductions in pain and slight improvements in functional outcomes (Araya-Quintanilla et al., 2022; Gianola, de Oliveira, & de Almeida, 2021).
Postoperative and Traumatic Edema: KT is frequently applied to manage postoperative swelling, particularly after orthopedic surgery or traumatic injuries. Evidence supports that KT can reduce edema in the short term, especially when combined with standard interventions (Hörmann, Kluge, & Kessler, 2020).
Neurological Rehabilitation: Post-stroke populations have been investigated for KT’s potential to reduce spasticity, improve pain, and enhance range of motion. Moderate short-term improvements have been observed (Sheng et al., 2019).
Athletic Performance in Healthy Individuals: Evidence for KT enhancing performance in healthy athletes is limited. Small improvements in proprioception or joint stability have been reported, but KT does not reliably increase strength, endurance, or power output (Kandeel et al., 2025; Williams et al., 2012).
Summary of Current Evidence: Overall, KT demonstrates short-term effectiveness in pain reduction, modest improvements in range of motion, and temporary edema management. Its long-term impact on muscle strength, functional recovery, and athletic performance is limited.
5. Limitations and Critical Considerations
While kinesiotaping (KT) has gained widespread clinical adoption, its evidence base and practical application are subject to several important limitations and considerations. Understanding these constraints is essential for both clinicians and researchers when interpreting outcomes and designing interventions.
Methodological Limitations: Many studies on KT feature small sample sizes, short followup periods, and inconsistent blinding (Mostafavifar et al., 2012; Nelson, 2016). Variability in taping techniques—including tape type, adhesive properties, tension, pattern, and duration— further complicates comparisons.
Short-Term Effects and Clinical Significance: Statistically significant improvements in pain or range of motion are often modest and may not translate into clinically meaningful benefits (Hörmann, Kluge, & Kessler, 2020).
Psychological and Contextual Factors: Patient expectations, therapist experience, and therapeutic context significantly influence outcomes. Placebo effects and engagement in rehabilitation may contribute to perceived benefits independent of KT’s physiological properties (Zhang et al., 2019; Kandeel et al., 2025).
Practical Challenges: Real-world effectiveness may be affected by patient adherence, skin tolerance, allergic reactions, cost, and the need for trained application (Williams et al., 2012). Environmental factors such as sweating or friction may also influence tape performance.
Research Implications: Future research should standardize taping protocols, improve methodological rigor, and include larger, well-controlled trials with longer follow-ups.
Summary of Limitations: KT is generally safe and widely used, but benefits are contextdependent, often short-term, and influenced by methodological and psychological factors. Clinicians should consider these limitations when integrating KT into therapeutic programs.
6. Summary and Practical Implications
KT demonstrates short-term benefits, particularly in pain relief, range of motion, and edema reduction, especially when combined with other therapies or applied early in the course of a condition. Evidence for mid- to long-term benefits on function, strength, or recovery is weak, with outcomes often converging with those of sham or placebo interventions (Nelson, 2016; Zhang et al., 2019). KT appears most effective in specific conditions such as myofascial pain, postoperative states, edema, or poststroke rehabilitation, whereas effects in rotator cuff injuries or in performance enhancement for healthy individuals remain limited. Clinical application should therefore be targeted, technically precise, and accompanied by realistic expectation management, ideally compared with sham or control interventions in research contexts.
About the Author:
Tobias Giesen is a physiotherapist specialized in musculoskeletal physiotherapy. After his Bachelor's degree in Physiotherapy, he studied for a Master of Science in Sport and Exercise Medicine at a British faculty and completed it successfully. His particular interests lie in medical neuroscience, pain medicine, and manual therapy.
References
(1) Araya-Quintanilla, F., Gutiérrez-Espinoza, H., Sepulveda-Loyola, W., Probst, V., Ramirez-Vélez, R., & Âlvarez-Bueno, C. (2022). Effectiveness of kine- siotaping in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 32(2), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14084
(2) gianola, s., de oliveira, f. c., & de almeida, m. o. (2021). Kinesio taping for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2021(8), CD012720. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012720
(3) hörmann, j., kluge, m., & kessler, m. (2020). kine- siotaping for postoperative oedema - what is the evidence? BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 12, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-020- 00162-3
(4) kandeel, m., marzok, m., afzal, s., meligy, a., Mahmoud, M., Albokhadaim, I., Khodair, K. M., & Alhojaily, S. (2025). A systematic review and metaanalysis of the efficacy of kinesio taping for pain management and pressure pain threshold in myofascial pain syndrome. Pain Research & Management, 2025, 8881632. https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/8881632
(5) nelson, n. l. (2016). kinesio taping for chronic low back pain: A systematic review. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 20(3), 672-681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.04.018
(6) sheng, y., duan, z., qu, q., chen, w., & yu, b. (2019). Kinesio taping in treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 51(10), 734-740. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2019.01.0013
(7) zhang, x. f., liu, l., wang, b. b., liu, x., & li, p. (2019). Evidence for kinesio taping in management of myofascial pain syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 33(5), 865-874. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519826267
(8) kase, k., wallis, j., & kase, t. (2003). Clinical therapeutic applications of the Kinesio Taping method (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Ken Ikai Co Ltd.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Tobias Giesen (Author), 2024, Evaluating the Physiological and Clinical Effects of Kinesiotaping. A Systematic Evidence-Based Perspective, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1662070
