Efficacy of kinesio tape added to lumbar stabilization exercises on adult patients with mechanical low back pain

Lumbar stabilization exercises (LSEs) are said to be beneficial for chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP). However, further research focusing on intervention combinations is recommended. This study examined the effect of kinesio tape (KT) with LSEs on CMLBP adult patients.

A randomized blinded clinical trial was conducted. Fifty CMLBP patients of both genders were assigned into one of two groups and received 8 weeks of treatment:

• group A (control): LSEs only,
• group B (experimental): KT with LSEs.

The primary outcome was back disability, measured by the Oswestry disability index. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, trunk extensor endurance, and sagittal spinal alignment, as indicated by the visual analog scale, Sorensen-test, and C7–S1 sagittal vertical axis, respectively. The reported data was analyzed by a two-way MANOVA using an intention-to-treat procedure.

Multivariate tests indicate statistically significant effects for group (F = 4.42, p = 0.005, partial η2 = 0.148), time (F = 219.55, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.904), and group-by-time interaction (F = 3.21, p = 0.01, partial η2 = 0.149). Univariate comparisons between groups revealed significant reductions in the experimental group regarding disability (p = 0.029, partial η2 = 0.049) and pain (p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.102) without a significant difference in the Sorensen test (p = 0.281) or C7–S1 SVA (p = 0.491) results. All within-group comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

The authors concluded that the combination of KT and LSEs is an effective CMLBP treatment option. Although patients in both groups displayed significant changes in all outcomes, the combined interventions induced more significant reductions in back disability and pain intensity.

One of the main reason for conducting a controlled clinical trial is to determine whether the intervention, rather than some other factor, was the cause of the observed outcome. Yet, these trials can be designed in such a way that they mislead us on precisely this point. The present study is an example for such a case.

The authors leave us in no doubt that the KT was the cause of the positive outcome. However, they might be entirely wrong. Here are some other possibilities:

• the extra attention might have done the trick;
• the ritual of applying KT must have an effect;
• the expectation of the patient could have influenced the outcome;
• verbal or non-verbal communication between the patient and the therapist would have had an effect.

I know, it is often difficult to control for such influences in clinical trials. But, if it proves to be impossible [and in the case of KT it probably is possible], one should at the very least be cautious when drawing conclusions from the results. I suggest something like this:

The combination of KT and LSEs generated better outcomes than LSE alone. Whether this is due to specific effects of KT or non-specific context effects remains unclear.