Great article about Kinesio Tape and the Celtics from last year...
Kinesio Tape Working Wonders for Celtics
by Neil Keefe on Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:22PM
If Kevin Garnett's right knee remains healthy this season, he can thank the unusual black tape wrapped around his leg for relieving all the pain,even if he doesn't know what the tape is or how it works. But then again, no one really knows how it works.
The tape is called Kinesio tape, and it has become a frequently-used pain reliever on the Celtics for both players and coaches.
"It just kind of relieves whatever is hurting," J.R. Giddens, who wears the tape on his right knee and back, told the Boston Herald. "It makes it feel better. I guess it’s the way it lays on the muscles, some pressure release or something."
"I don’t know what the hell it does, but it makes me feel better," Doc Rivers told the Herald. "It’s not just a tape, they put it on certain muscles .. I don’t know what the hell it does. Maybe it’s mental. I think a lot of teams are doing it and it’s been good. I know Kevin loves it."
How the tape works is still a mystery, but the wrapping technique became a hit during the 2008 Summer Olympics when Kinesio USA donated 50,000 rolls to the Games and athletes began wearing it.
Hasheem Thabeet, former UConn star and now member of the Memphis Grizzlies, used the tape on his shoulder throughout the season for the Huskies last year.
"There’s just not a ton of research on it," UConn basketball trainer James Doran told the Herald. "It’s not because when they do research it gets blown up, it’s just the research hasn’t been done. Kinesio tape originally started in Asia and it used to be like this secret taping that they used. It made its way to the New World and America and Europe have jumped on it. Again, when you try to find research on it, it’s just not there."
Dr. Joshua Brooks
Chiropractor, Fairfax VA
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Interferential Current Therapy for Musculoskeletal Pain
Effectiveness of Interferential Current Therapy in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysisfrom Physical Therapy current issue by Fuentes, J. P., Armijo Olivo, S., Magee, D. J., Gross, D. P.
Background
Interferential current (IFC) is a common electrotherapeutic modality used to treat pain. Although IFC is widely used, the available information regarding its clinical efficacy is debatable.
Purpose
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the available information regarding the efficacy of IFC in the management of musculoskeletal pain.
Data Sources
Randomized controlled trials were obtained through a computerized search of bibliographic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, and Web of Science) from 1950 to February 8, 2010.
Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts found in the databases. Methodological quality was assessed using a compilation of items included in different scales related to rehabilitation research. The mean difference, with 95% confidence interval, was used to quantify the pooled effect. A chi-square test for heterogeneity was performed.
Data Synthesis
A total of 2,235 articles were found. Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven articles assessed the use of IFC on joint pain; 9 articles evaluated the use of IFC on muscle pain; 3 articles evaluated its use on soft tissue shoulder pain; and 1 article examined its use on postoperative pain. Three of the 20 studies were considered to be of high methodological quality, 14 studies were considered to be of moderate methodological quality, and 3 studies were considered to be of poor methodological quality. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis.
Conclusion
Interferential current as a supplement to another intervention seems to be more effective for reducing pain than a control treatment at discharge and more effective than a placebo treatment at the 3-month follow-up. However, it is unknown whether the analgesic effect of IFC is superior to that of the concomitant interventions. Interferential current alone was not significantly better than placebo or other therapy at discharge or follow-up. Results must be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that used IFC alone. In addition, the heterogeneity across studies and methodological limitations prevent conclusive statements regarding analgesic efficacy.
Dr. Joshua Brooks
Chiropractor, Fairfax Va
Background
Interferential current (IFC) is a common electrotherapeutic modality used to treat pain. Although IFC is widely used, the available information regarding its clinical efficacy is debatable.
Purpose
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the available information regarding the efficacy of IFC in the management of musculoskeletal pain.
Data Sources
Randomized controlled trials were obtained through a computerized search of bibliographic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, and Web of Science) from 1950 to February 8, 2010.
Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts found in the databases. Methodological quality was assessed using a compilation of items included in different scales related to rehabilitation research. The mean difference, with 95% confidence interval, was used to quantify the pooled effect. A chi-square test for heterogeneity was performed.
Data Synthesis
A total of 2,235 articles were found. Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven articles assessed the use of IFC on joint pain; 9 articles evaluated the use of IFC on muscle pain; 3 articles evaluated its use on soft tissue shoulder pain; and 1 article examined its use on postoperative pain. Three of the 20 studies were considered to be of high methodological quality, 14 studies were considered to be of moderate methodological quality, and 3 studies were considered to be of poor methodological quality. Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis.
Conclusion
Interferential current as a supplement to another intervention seems to be more effective for reducing pain than a control treatment at discharge and more effective than a placebo treatment at the 3-month follow-up. However, it is unknown whether the analgesic effect of IFC is superior to that of the concomitant interventions. Interferential current alone was not significantly better than placebo or other therapy at discharge or follow-up. Results must be considered with caution due to the low number of studies that used IFC alone. In addition, the heterogeneity across studies and methodological limitations prevent conclusive statements regarding analgesic efficacy.
Dr. Joshua Brooks
Chiropractor, Fairfax Va
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)