Does lower limb kinesio taping affect pain, muscle strength, and balance following fatigue in healthy subjects? A systematic review and meta analysis of parallel randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background

Kinesio tape (KT) has gained popularity in sports and rehabilitation due to its ease of use and potential benefits. However, its effectiveness is not well understood especially in addressing fatigue, a condition that can impair muscle function and increase the musculoskeletal risk of injury. Given KT's potential impact on muscle activity and recovery, this review aims to evaluate the effects of lower limb KT on pain, strength, and balance following fatigue.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in five databases (Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and PEDRO) up to January 2024. The search employed keywords related to KT, fatigue, and delayed onset muscle soreness. We included parallel randomized controlled trials that compared KT to control groups, including sham tape, rigid tape, or no-tape. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted for pain and strength outcomes, but not balance due to the limited number of articles addressing this outcome.

Results

After screening 320 initial records, 16 studies were included in the analysis, all of which were characterized by a high risk of methodological bias. The meta-analysis on 837 subjects demonstrated that KT significantly reduced fatigue-related pain, with a moderate effect size (SMD = -0.44, p < 0.0001, I ² = 32%). Subgroup analysis revealed significant pain reduction after 48 h, with no substantial effects immediately or at 24 h. The meta-analysis on muscle strength, involving 605 subjects, showed a significant improvement in the KT group, with a moderate to strong effect size (SMD = 0.46, p < 0.0001, I ² = 45%). Subgroup analysis indicated strength improvements at all time points: immediate, 48 h, and beyond 48 h. Results regarding balance were mixed; two studies reported a positive effect of KT on balance, while two others showed no significant impact.

Conclusions

KT effectively reduces pain following fatigue, particularly noticeable after 48 h, and significantly enhances muscle strength, with potential balance improvements. These findings highlight KT's non-invasive, and cost-effective advantages. However, due to high risk of bias and methodological variability, further rigorous research is essential to substantiate these benefits and refine the therapeutic application of KT.

Introduction

Kinesio tape (KT), recognized for its ease of use, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility, has garnered significant attention in the field of rehabilitation. Existing literature highlights the positive effects of KT, including pain reduction, improved proprioception, increased strength, decreased disability, and improved function [1,2,3,4,5]. However, despite these observed benefits, debates persist, with some studies report no significant effects of KT [6,7,8]. This discrepancy may be attributed to the diverse techniques of applying KT and the various populations studied, including healthy individuals, patients, and athletes.

One specific area of application for KT is in addressing fatigue, a condition frequently encountered in both sports and daily activities. Fatigue can impair proprioception, muscle activity, and biomechanical variables, thereby increasing the risk of injury [9,10,11]. Consequently, finding ways to mitigate the adverse effects of fatigue has become an area of interest in studies. Owing to the positive effects of KT on muscular activity, proprioception, and blood and lymph circulation [1,2,3,4,5, 12, 13], there is a growing trend toward the use of KT to counteract fatigue-induced changes in the musculoskeletal system and to facilitate recovery. Therefore, a comprehensive summary of existing literature could enhance our understanding of its beneficial impacts.

To date, only one meta-analysis has explored the effects of KT in situations involving delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), indicating potential benefits for DOMS on muscle soreness and strength [14]. However, recognizing that fatigue is a broader and more general condition than DOMS, our study adopts a comprehensive approach, assessing fatigue as a general term. The primary objective of this review is to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the existing literature, providing insights into the potential of KT as an intervention for alleviating fatigue-induced changes in various parameters of the musculoskeletal system. In our review, we specifically focus on lower limb muscles because of their fundamental role in functional and weight-bearing tasks in activities of daily living and sports, where activities such as walking, running, and jumping are common. As muscles serve as the main dampers of the body [15], fatigued muscles may not act as effective shock absorbers, thereby increasing the risk of injury to the lower limb [16,17,18]. Moreover, we also conducted a meta-analysis for two variables, pain and muscle strength. By thoroughly examining the available evidence, we aim to contribute to a practical understanding of KT’s effectiveness and its application in managing fatigue.

Method

Reporting standard

The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) prior to the preliminary searches (Systematic Review Registration: CRD42022345370). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA, 2020) guidelines [19] were utilized to guide the study.

Literature search strategy and information sources

To investigate the effects of KT on musculoskeletal variables post-fatigue, five international bibliographic electronic databases—Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database—were independently searched by the author, GHJ. The search, conducted without time restrictions, was extended up to January 2024.

To identify relevant studies, a search was conducted via a combination of keywords related to kinesio taping, fatigue, delayed muscle soreness, and related abbreviations in accordance with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH terms). In each database, automatic filtering tools were employed to exclude irrelevant studies on the basis of design, subject, and language. The search strategies used for each database are presented in the Appendix, Additional file 1. Additionally, the reference lists of the included articles were also manually searched for other relevant studies. The search results were exported to EndNote Version 9, where duplicates were removed.

Screening for eligibility

The remaining articles were subjected to independent screening by GHJ and SB. The study selection process, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [19], was conducted in two stages. The initial stage involved the review of titles and abstracts. If any ambiguity arose, the full texts were subjected to further scrutiny. The authors documented the reasons for the exclusion of each article. Any disagreements between the two researchers during the study selection process were resolved by HJ.

Study selection

The initial literature search identified a large number of studies with significant variability in participant populations, KT application sites on different body regions, and reported outcomes, necessitating a refinement of our inclusion criteria to enhance methodological consistency and relevance. The following inclusion criteria were applied: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel design, 2) healthy adult participants without musculoskeletal injury, 3) studies investigating the musculoskeletal effects of implementing lower limb kinesio taping following fatigue or delayed muscle soreness, and 4) studies published in English.

Data extraction

Data extraction

SB and GHJ independently extracted data to fill a predefined table (Table 1). The data set included the author(s), year of publication, number and gender of participants in both the intervention and control groups (which could include sham, rigid tape, or no tape), intervention details, outcome measures, fatigue protocols, and results. After completing the extraction, SB and GHJ cross-checked their findings to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

Quality assessment

Two independent researchers (SB and GHJ) evaluated the risk of bias for each article via the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (ROB2) tool for randomized trials [36]. The ROB2 tool assesses the risk of bias in five domains: bias arising from the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result.

The risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions was assessed according to the effect of assignment to the intervention. There are three possible risk-of-bias judgments based on the ROB2 tool: 1) low risk of bias, 2) some concerns, and 3) high risk of bias for each study and an overall judgment. The Cochrane risk-of-bias visualization (robvis) tool was used to generate the figures [37].

Meta-analysis

To conduct our systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis, we initially conducted an exploratory search without predefined outcomes to comprehensively gather and assess all relevant literature. Eligible studies were then selected based on predefined inclusion criteria. Among the reported outcomes, pain and muscle strength emerged as the most consistently reported with sufficient studies and methodological similarities, making them suitable for meta-analysis.

The 'pain' subgroup included subjective assessments such as pain intensity, soreness, muscle soreness, and DOMS during maximal contraction. These scores were measured via the visual analogue scale (VAS). For the purposes of uniformity in our analysis, all pain measurements recorded in millimeters on the VAS were converted to centimeters.

Conversely, the 'strength' subgroup included measurements such as muscle strength, isometric peak muscle torque, and maximum isometric voluntary contraction. These parameters were quantified via either a handheld dynamometer or an isokinetic device, providing objective assessments of muscular function.

Statistical model and effect size calculation

The meta-analysis was conducted via the “meta” package, version 7.0, in R (version 4.4.0), employing the “metacont” function to analyse continuous outcome variables from the included studies. A random-effects model was employed to accommodate the variability both within and between studies, acknowledging the potential heterogeneity in study designs, participant populations, and intervention protocols (fatigue induction and taping). The choice of model was of critical importance to obtain an overall effect size that is generalizable across a range of clinical settings.

The effect size for each study was calculated via Hedges' g, which adjusts for the potential bias associated with a small sample size, thereby providing a more accurate estimation of the standardized mean difference (SMD). This measure quantifies the magnitude of the intervention effect, specifically the effect of taping post-fatigue, in comparison to the sham or no-tape conditions. Effect sizes and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs 95%) were derived to assess the precision and stability of the estimates.

Heterogeneity assessment

To evaluate the extent of heterogeneity among the studies included in the meta-analysis, the chi-square (X²) test and the I² statistic were employed. The I² statistic estimates the percentage of observed variance that reflects differences in true effect sizes rather than sampling error. Conventional thresholds for I² were employed, with values greater than 25%, 50%, and 75% indicating low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. A low p-value associated with the X² test indicates the presence of significant heterogeneity across the included studies.

Subgroup analysis

Given the potential for variation in response to the taping intervention at different time intervals post-fatigue, subgroup analyses were conducted. The analyses were stratified by the timing of the outcome measurements into the following categories: immediate, 24 h, 48 h, and beyond 48 h post-intervention. This stratification allowed for a detailed examination of the temporal dynamics of taping effects, thereby facilitating a detailed interpretation of the intervention’s efficacy across different recovery periods.

Sensitivity analysis

In the presence of observed heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the meta-analysis findings. This involved sequentially removing each study from the pooled analysis to evaluate its impact on the overall effect size. This step was critical for determining whether specific studies disproportionately influenced the results, ensuring that the conclusions drawn from the meta-analysis were reliable and representative of the broader literature.

Results

Study selection

The process of identification, screening, and selection of the included studies is illustrated in the diagram shown in Fig. 1. Initially, 320 studies were identified, which were reduced to 177 following the removal of duplicates. Finally, through screening criteria on the basis of titles, abstracts, and full texts, sixteen studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. No additional studies were included through a manual search of the reference lists of the included studies.

Fig. 1

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the study selection process

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the included studies are reported in Table 1.

Quality assessment

The potential risk of bias within each domain, along with the overall judgment for all eligible studies, is depicted in Fig. 2. The overall methodological risk of bias for all studies was deemed high.

Fig. 2

The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Visualization (robvis) tool for evaluating bias in randomized trials. The color coding system indicates the level of bias risk: green indicates low risk, yellow indicates moderate risk, and red indicates high risk

Information about allocation concealment, which is a crucial aspect of the randomization process, was reported in only five studies [20, 22, 26, 30, 32]. However, no significant differences were reported between groups in any of the studies (Domain 1). Three studies reported that participants were blinded [32, 33, 35]. In all studies, the intervention group was compared with either a sham or no-tape group. Two studies reported the blinding of individuals delivering the assigned intervention, although this was challenging [30, 35]. None of the studies provided information about the estimation of the effect of assignment to intervention, such as intention-to-treat analysis (Domain 2). Four studies reported the number of participants whose outcomes were analysed [27, 31,32,33]. No information was provided regarding missing data, analysis methods that correct for bias, or sensitivity analysis and the effects of true value on missing outcomes in other studies (Domain 3). In seven studies, the outcome assessors were not aware of the intervention received by the study participants (Domain 4) [22,23,24, 32,33,34,35]. Furthermore, none of the studies reported data based on a pre-specified analysis plan, which could have contributed to bias in the selection of the reported results (Domain 5).

Meta-analysis on pain

Overall meta-analysis

The updated meta-analysis incorporated data from 24 comparison groups with a total of 837 observations (experimental group, n = 416; control group, n = 421). A statistically significant reduction in pain scores post-intervention was noted in the taping group compared with the control group. In the random-effects model, the SMD was -0.4366, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from -0.6035 to -0.2698, denoting a moderate effect size (z = -5.13, p < 0.0001). The common effect model yielded a comparable SMD of -0.4391 (95% CI: -0.5780 to -0.3002) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Meta-analysis on pain (forest plot). * indicates p-value < 0.05

Heterogeneity and model specifications

Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed, resulting in a tau² of 0.0516 and an I² of 32.4%, indicating moderate heterogeneity. This level of variability was not statistically significant (Q = 34.01, df = 23, p = 0.0650), justifying the continued use of the random-effects model. The analysis utilized the inverse variance method, with a restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for tau², and the Q-Profile method for the confidence interval. Moreover, the results of sensitivity analyses revealed that the overall effect sizes for both pain reduction and muscle strength enhancement remained stable, with no individual study disproportionately influencing the results. This stability suggests that our findings are robust and not overly dependent on any single study.

Subgroup analysis by time of measurement

Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore differences in pain reduction at various time points post-intervention:

• Immediate: Showed a marginal, non-significant reduction in pain (SMD = -0.2927; 95% CI: -0.7053 to 0.1199; tau = 0.3021) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 41.0%).

• 24 h: Revealed an insignificant smaller reduction (SMD = -0.1667; 95% CI: -0.4874 to 0.1540; tau = 0.0983) with low heterogeneity (I² = 14.7%).

• 48 h: Demonstrated a substantial and significant reduction in pain (SMD = -0.6960; 95% CI: -0.9527 to -0.4393; tau = 0.0330), with very low heterogeneity (I² = 10.6%).

• More than 48 h: Indicated a moderate reduction (SMD = -0.4601; 95% CI: -0.7436 to -0.1765; tau = 0.1733) with low to moderate heterogeneity (I² = 27.8%).

The test for subgroup differences in the random effects model revealed no statistically significant between-group heterogeneity (Q = 7.09, df = 3, p = 0.0692), suggesting a relatively consistent treatment effect across different measurement times, although the immediate and 24-h results were less pronounced.

Meta-analysis on muscle strength

Overall meta-analysis

The updated meta-analysis incorporated data from 18 comparison groups with a total of 605 observations (experimental group, n = 301; control group, n = 304). A significant improvement in muscle strength was observed in the taping group compared with the control group. The SMD under the random-effects model was 0.4566, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.2371 to 0.6762, suggesting a moderate to strong effect size (z = 4.08, p < 0.0001). Similarly, the common effect model estimated an SMD of 0.4321 (95% CI: 0.2682 to 0.5960) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Meta-analysis on muscle strength (forest plot). * indicates p-value < 0.05

Heterogeneity and model specifications

The heterogeneity among the included studies was moderate, with a tau² of 0.0946 and an I² of 44.6%. This degree of heterogeneity was statistically significant (Q = 30.68, df = 17, p = 0.0218), supporting the use of a random-effects model. The analysis employed the inverse variance method with a restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for tau² and the Q-Profile method for the confidence interval.

Subgroup analysis by time of measurement

Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore variations in effect sizes at different time intervals post-intervention:

• Immediate: The most substantial increase in muscle strength was noted (SMD = 0.6030; 95% CI: 0.1038 to 1.1022; tau = 0.5948), with high heterogeneity (I² = 67.7%).

• 48 hours: Moderate improvement was observed (SMD = 0.4005; 95% CI: 0.0571 to 0.7439; tau = 0.2053), with low heterogeneity (I² = 23.3%).

• More than 48 h: A consistent, albeit smaller, effect was observed (SMD = 0.3439; 95% CI: 0.0551 to 0.6326), with negligible heterogeneity (I² = 0.0%).

The test for subgroup differences in the random effects model indicated no statistically significant differences between the time intervals (Q = 0.78, df = 2, p = 0.6781), suggesting a relatively uniform effect of the intervention across different recovery times.

Discussion

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of lower limb kinesio taping on fatigue in healthy individuals. The literature review revealed significant findings regarding the effects of KT on the musculoskeletal system post-fatigue, which has implications for both methodological considerations and practical application.

Influence on pain

The impact of KT on pain has emerged as a significant focus in the reviewed studies, consistently revealing a reduction in muscle pain and soreness [21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33]. Across all the selected studies, a decrease in pain scores [21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 33] and the levels of interleukin-6 [33], a pro-inflammatory cytokine associated with muscle damage, was evident. Notably, this pain reduction effect was observed immediately after KT application, as well as at 24, 48, and more than 48 h post-intervention. This is relevant not only to athletes but also to non-athletes. However, meta-analytic findings revealed significant pain reduction in the KT group compared with the sham or no-tape groups, which became apparent only 48 h after application. This delay contrasts with immediate or 24-h post-intervention timeframes, where pain reduction is not significant. These observations are consistent with previous meta-analysis on DOMS [14], which similarly reported no significant effects of KT within the first 24 h.

While individual studies reported decreases in pain across all time subgroups, pooled data from the meta-analysis highlighted a significant effect on pain, primarily at later stages (48 h and beyond). This suggests that the efficacy of KT in alleviating pain, particularly as DOMS intensifies, may not be immediate but rather may emerge over time. Further investigations into the minimal effects observed before 48 h and potential mechanisms of action for KT are warranted, although this topic extends beyond the scope of this review.

Impact on muscular strength

The reviewed studies consistently reported positive effects of KT on performance parameters, including muscle strength, rate of development, and single-leg hop distance [20, 21, 25, 27, 31, 35]. Notably, while the muscle strength value and development rate represent localized measures of muscular performance, the inclusion of the single-leg hop distance as a global parameter involving a multi-joint system suggests that KT may enhance lower limb muscular performance at both the local and functional levels.

The meta-analytical results underscored a significant overall improvement in strength across time subgroups—immediate, 48 h, and beyond 48 h—highlighted in the forest plot (Fig. 4). Unlike pain, the 24-h timeframe was not analysed for strength because of insufficient data. These findings contrast with the other DOMS study [14], where significant KT effects on strength were noted only after 72 h. The variance could be attributed to the larger and more recent sample of articles included in this analysis.

It is crucial to note that the primary studies on muscle strength largely involved non-athlete subjects or did not specify participants' physical activity levels. Future research should focus on the effects of KT on athletes to derive insights applicable to those regularly engaged in physical activities. Studies have shown considerable heterogeneity in methodology; some have used handheld dynamometers, whereas others have used isokinetic devices. Additionally, some studies normalized the outcomes to body weight, whereas others did not. Moreover, data extraction challenges arose in one study where numerical values were absent, necessitating the use of specialized software. Given these factors, although significant KT effects on muscle strength were observed, interpreting these results requires caution because of the heterogeneity of the methods employed.

Influence on balance and proprioception

The effects of KT on balance and proprioception, both static and dynamic, have shown mixed outcomes. Some studies reported enhancements in balance and superficial sensory sensations [23, 28], whereas others reported no significant effects [20, 24]. The variation in findings may be attributed to the different muscle groups targeted by KT application. Studies applying KT around the ankle or on the gastrocnemius consistently reported balance improvements [23, 28], unlike those targeting the quadriceps, which reported no significant effect [20, 24]. Balance is influenced by multiple lower limb muscle groups, including the quadriceps, gastrocnemius, and ankle muscles. While some studies suggest that KT applied to the gastrocnemius and ankle may have a more pronounced effect on balance, others have found no significant impact when KT is applied to the quadriceps. However, the small number of studies and the methodological heterogeneity limit our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Consequently, conducting a meta-analysis on balance outcomes was not feasible, underscoring the need for further research to clarify the potential effects of KT on balance function.

Methodological challenges, limitations and variability in study designs

Our study faced several methodological challenges. Initially, we conducted an exploratory systematic search without predefining specific primary outcomes, aiming to comprehensively gather and evaluate all relevant literature on the effects of lower limb KT following fatigue in healthy individuals. After selecting studies based on our predefined inclusion criteria, we analysed the reported outcomes to identify the most commonly studied variables. This process revealed three primary outcomes: pain, muscle strength, and balance. Pain and muscle strength were consistently and homogeneously reported across the studies, making them suitable for meta-analysis. In contrast, balance was measured using varied approaches, such as different center of pressure metrics and the star excursion balance test, and appeared in too few studies to allow for a meaningful meta-analysis. Consequently, we focused our meta-analysis on pain and muscle strength, as these outcomes were the most prevalent and methodologically comparable across the included studies. We acknowledge that not predefining specific primary outcomes prior to conducting the literature search may introduce bias. This limitation is common in rehabilitation research, where studies often lack of predefined primary and secondary outcome measures. For future research, we recommend establishing clear primary and secondary outcomes in advance to enhance methodological rigor and reduce potential bias. Notably, one study reporting median values [26] was excluded to maintain methodological consistency, as our analysis was based on mean values. For a study presenting data in graphical form [27], we utilized the WebPlotDigitizer tool (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer) to extract and convert data accurately. It is recommended that future research report mean and standard deviation values to enhance analytical robustness.

Another challenge arose from the variability in fatigue protocols, targeted muscle groups, and study populations. While most studies have clearly distinguished between the fatigue protocol and the subsequent assessment task, some, such as the heel rise protocol [32], used the same task for both fatigue induction and outcome measurement, specifically assessing the number of heel rises. Fatigue protocols also varied widely, from those targeting specific muscle groups [20,21,22,23,24,25, 28, 29, 32, 35] to more global, functional multi-joint protocols [26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34]. These variations, along with the diverse methods used for measuring strength and balance, complicate the meta-analysis across all outcome measures. Furthermore, the participant populations across the included studies were heterogeneous, with participants variably classified as athletes, non-athletes, or physically active individuals, and some studies providing no specific classification (as detailed in Table 1). Definitions of these categories were often inconsistent or absent, and the term "physically active" was not uniformly defined across studies. Since all participants successfully completed fatigue protocols requiring a certain level of physical capability, there may be substantial overlap between the non-athlete and physically active groups. This heterogeneity and the inconsistent reporting of participant characteristics limited our ability to perform meaningful subgroup analyses comparing athletes and non-athletes.

Blinding also posed significant challenges. Some have attempted patient blinding by using sham tapes, applying the same taping methods on targeted muscles but without tension, or placing small parts of tapes on non-targeted areas. Both methods have limitations; methods without tension may still stimulate cutaneous receptors, potentially having a therapeutic effect. The small part in another area, particularly for patients with prior KT experience or exposure to KT in media for athletes, might not effectively mitigate the placebo effect. Furthermore, blinding assessors was problematic, as they could visually identify the type of tape applied to the subjects. Although one article reported using trousers to conceal the tape [24], which might be a viable solution, this approach is not universally applicable since many outcome measurements require exposed body parts.

Another significant limitation was the lack of detailed reporting on KT application. Some studies did not provide comprehensive details on the taping method or generalized muscle names without specifying each muscle involved. Additionally, the exact types of taping applications, the tension applied, or the method for calculating this tension were often inadequately described. These factors are critical, as the effectiveness of KT is highly dependent on the therapist’s application technique, and variations in taping methods can lead to differing outcomes.

It should be noted that RCTs were the selected study design for this review. Despite the widespread use of KT and the availability of various types of articles, such as observational studies and case reports, our focus remained specifically on RCTs because of their high level of evidence. This deliberate choice was intended to enhance the robustness of our findings. However, within the realm of RCTs, limitations such as variations in KT application, blinding, heterogeneity in outcome measures, and small sample sizes still necessitate cautious interpretation of the results. Notably, no study has explicitly reported a clear methodology for sample size calculation for their clinical trials. This lack of rigorous sample size determination could introduce estimation bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Addressing these limitations is essential to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented in this systematic review.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides valuable insights into the effects of lower limb kinesio taping on fatigue in healthy individuals. Despite considerable heterogeneity in study designs and a notable risk of bias, there is a general agreement supporting the efficacy of KT. The evidence suggests that KT is effective in reducing pain following fatigue, particularly 48 h post-application, and in enhancing muscular strength. Although a meta-analysis on balance was not feasible, there are indications that KT may improve balance and proprioception. These findings highlight the clinical relevance of KT as a non-invasive and cost-effective approach to managing fatigue-related symptoms and improving physical performance. However, the diversity in fatigue protocols, variability in outcome measures, and often insufficient detail on KT application methodologies across studies underscore the need for more standardized and rigorous research. Establishing such standards is essential to substantiate these findings further and optimize the therapeutic application of KT .