Background: Athletes often use conservative treatments such as kinesiology taping (KT) and myofascial release (MFR) to address musculoskeletal discomfort, improve functional movement, and enhance performance; however, few studies have directly compared their effectiveness. This review aims to inform future primary research by comparing mechanisms and outcomes of KT versus MFR and evaluating their combined use.
Methods: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed with keywords including “[kinesiology tap*]” and “[myofascial release].” Studies were included if they evaluated KT or MFR in human subjects, with emphasis on clinically relevant outcomes. Articles were screened by four reviewers and qualified based on study design and bias risk.
Results: Both KT and MFR are proposed to influence mechanoreceptors, fluid movement, and tissue tension within the myofascial system. KT acts by lifting superficial skin layers, whereas MFR acts through targeted pressure. Evidence suggests both KT and MFR may modestly improve musculoskeletal pain, range of motion, and functional movement; however, little evidence supports a significant relationship with athletic performance. Other evidence suggests that combining the therapies may provide improved outcomes in pain relief, flexibility, mobility, function, blood flow, and proprioception compared with either intervention alone; however, protocol heterogeneity and small sample sizes limit definitive conclusions.
Conclusions: While few studies have directly compared KT to MFR, both techniques continue to be widely used because of their benefits to athletic performance, post-injury recovery, or functionality. Due to slight mechanistic differences, combining KT and MFR may incur the most benefit.
Methods: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed with keywords including “[kinesiology tap*]” and “[myofascial release].” Studies were included if they evaluated KT or MFR in human subjects, with emphasis on clinically relevant outcomes. Articles were screened by four reviewers and qualified based on study design and bias risk.
Results: Both KT and MFR are proposed to influence mechanoreceptors, fluid movement, and tissue tension within the myofascial system. KT acts by lifting superficial skin layers, whereas MFR acts through targeted pressure. Evidence suggests both KT and MFR may modestly improve musculoskeletal pain, range of motion, and functional movement; however, little evidence supports a significant relationship with athletic performance. Other evidence suggests that combining the therapies may provide improved outcomes in pain relief, flexibility, mobility, function, blood flow, and proprioception compared with either intervention alone; however, protocol heterogeneity and small sample sizes limit definitive conclusions.
Conclusions: While few studies have directly compared KT to MFR, both techniques continue to be widely used because of their benefits to athletic performance, post-injury recovery, or functionality. Due to slight mechanistic differences, combining KT and MFR may incur the most benefit.