Efficacy on pain and knee function of Kinesio taping among patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Kinesio taping (KT) has been widely used in patients with Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) because of its convenience and positive effects. However, there exists conflicting evidence regarding its efficacy. To systematically evaluate the effect of KT on pain and knee function in patients with PFPS.

Methods

This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD 42023442333) and completed following the PRISMA checklist. This study did not receive any funding. PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases were comprehensively searched by two independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines for the inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the effects of KT on pain and knee function in patients with PFPS. Quality assessment was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Ten RCTs published from 2011 to 2022 were included in this review. A total of 364 PFPS patients were analyzed, with 184 in the KT group and 180 in the control group. The KT group primarily received KT plus routine rehabilitation, while the control group received routine rehabilitation alone. The overall quality of the included studies was relatively low. Meta-analysis showed that KT significantly reduced visual analog scale pain scores (MD=-0.58, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.07, P = 0.03) and increased the Kujala anterior knee pain scale score (MD = 2.28, 95% CI: 0.00 to 4.56, P = 0.05) in patients with PFPS compared with controls. While knee extension peak torque (SMD = 0.06, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.52, P = 0.79), knee flexion peak torque (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.27), knee flexion range of motion (MD=-0.93, 95% CI: -4.54 to 2.68, P = 0.61), and knee joint position error (MD=-0.48, 95% CI: -1.91 to 0.96, P = 0.51) were not significantly different among KT and control groups.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that Kinesio taping reduces pain in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome, but its effects on knee muscle strength, knee flexion range of motion, and knee proprioception need further investigation. Given its low cost and accessibility, Kinesio taping can be used for pain management in patellofemoral pain syndrome.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-025-08627-7.

Introduction

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is one of the most common knee problems among young active individuals with an incidence of 28.9% [1, 2]. The main clinical manifestation of PFPS is pain around and behind the patella. The pain is often aggravated by excessive weight-bearing activities of the patellofemoral joint, such as running, walking up and down stairs, and squatting, which has a serious negative impact on the quality of life and exercise performance of PFPS patients [3]. PFPS is characterized by a low cure rate and a high recurrence rate, making it one of the public health problems that increase the global burden of disease [4].

Although its etiology remains unclear, biomechanical and structural dysfunction of the lower limb may result in static and dynamic imbalances that predispose individuals to develop or exacerbate symptoms [5]. The factors causing PFPS include imbalanced peripatellar soft-tissue tension, increased Q-angle, gluteal muscle weakness, quadriceps weakness, and muscular imbalance of the medial and lateral femoral muscles [6–8]. Of the modifiable risk factors for PFPS, the influence of medial femoral muscle weakness on the disease process has attracted increasing attention from researchers and clinicians. Medial femoral muscle weakness or delayed muscle activation can lead to an imbalance in the muscle strength of the medial-lateral femoral muscle, causing an abnormal patellar trajectory and further contributing to patellofemoral joint pain [9].

Most patients with PFPS undergo conservative treatment, including exercise therapy, manual therapy, taping, knee braces, and orthotics [3, 10, 11]. The consensus statement notes that effective management of PFPS requires an individualized and multimodal therapeutic approach, and suggests that taping be used as a stand-alone treatment or as an adjunctive therapy to exercise therapy [12, 13]. Kinesio taping (KT) is an elastic bandage that does not restrict movement and can be stretched up to 150% of its original length. Compared to other conservative treatments, KT is more portable and has lower demands in terms of equipment and technical expertise [14]. KT is highly flexible and thus brings about fewer system limitations than traditional tape. Therefore, KT has been widely used in clinical practice in the field of sports medicine in recent years. Several possible mechanisms of KT effects have been proposed, including enhancement of sensory input, improvement of lymphatic and blood circulation, and pain relief through endogenous analgesic mechanisms [15]. It has also been suggested that KT can increase the muscle activity ratio between the medial femoral and lateral femoral muscles by activating the medial femoral muscles, thereby correcting patellar malalignment and reducing patellofemoral joint pain [16].

Chang et al. [17] explored the effects of KT on pain and function in patients with PFPS. Unfortunately, the number of studies included in this meta-analysis was insufficient. This factor may affect the authenticity of the research results. Luo et al. [18] focused solely on pain and knee function scores, which do not reflect the comprehensive efficacy. Other studies did not perform quantitative analysis, making it difficult to clearly determine the specific efficacy [19, 20]. Given these limitations of existing literature, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of KT on pain and knee function in patients with PFPS. We aimed to provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians, researchers, and patients in the application of KT, thereby improving PFPS management strategies.

Methods

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted from April to November 2024. The included studies are all randomized controlled trials. This study was enrolled in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number CRD 42023442333) and completed following the PRISMA checklist. Prior to submission, we conducted an additional search and found no newly published relevant studies.

Literature search methods

The PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases were comprehensively searched according to PRISMA guidelines using the following search terms: “Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome”, “PFPS”, “Pain Syndrome”, “Patellofemoral”, “Patellofemoral Syndrome”, “Anterior Knee Pain Syndrome”, “Patellofemoral Pain”, “Pain, Patellofemoral”, “Patellofemoral Pains”, “Athletic Tape”, “Kinesio taping”, “Kinesio tape”, “Kinesiotaping”, “Kinesiotape”, “Kinesiology tape”, “Kinesiology taping”, “Kinesthetic taping”, “Kinesthetic tape”. The search was conducted by two independent researchers following a search formula without interference from each other. The references of all eligible articles were screened for completeness of included studies. No limit on the year of publication was set, and the final search was updated to April 06, 2024.

Literature inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria of the current study included: (1) Randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) The study population was patients with PFPS; (3) The study control group treated with no taping, placebo taping, or routine rehabilitation, and KT group received KT alone or KT plus routine rehabilitation; (4) Outcome measures included at least one of the following: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) score, knee extension peak torque, knee flexion peak torque, knee flexion range of motion (ROM), and knee joint position perception error; (5) The study language was English. All outcome measures in this study are widely used in clinical practice and research for assessing PFPS function, with confirmed reliability and validity.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria of the current study included: (1) Studies lacking outcome data; (2) Conference papers; (3) Duplicate studies; (4) Studies with serious flaws in experimental design; and (5) Full text unavailable.

Data extraction

Two investigators screened the literature and extracted relevant data using an independent double-blind method based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The literature screening was first performed based on the title and abstract to exclude irrelevant literature. Then, the full text was further read to decide whether the literature was included or not. The following data were extracted from each included study: the first author’s name, year of publication, number of patients, age, intervention program, intervention time, and outcome indicators. In case of disagreement, a third investigator made the final decision. The agreement between the two reviewers was assessed using the kappa statistic, with values categorized as bad (< 0.20), normal (0.40–0.59), good (0.60–0.74), and very good (≥ 0.75). The results showed that the Kappa scores for both reviewers were 1.

Risk of bias assessment

Quality assessment was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk Assessment Scale. The Cochrane Risk Assessment Scale consists of the following seven domains: (1) random sequence generation; (2) allocation concealment; (3) experimental staff blinding; (4) result staff blinding; (5) data completeness; (6) selective reporting of results; and (7) other sources of bias. The outcomes were judged as low, unclear, and high risk of bias. Two independent reviewers evaluated the results. In case of disagreement, differences of opinion were discussed and resolved with the third author. The Kappa score of the two reviewers was 0.88, indicating good consistency.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The outcome indicators in this study were all continuous variables. When the measurement methods and units are consistent, mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as the effect size indicators. Conversely, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI were used. The Chi-square test was used to determine the heterogeneity between studies. If P ≥ 0.1 and I² < 50%, it indicated that the heterogeneity between the studies was small, and the fixed-effects model was selected to analyze the studies. Conversely, P < 0.1 and I² > 50% indicated that the heterogeneity of the studies was large and the random-effects model was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of each study on the overall combined estimate. Funnel plots were constructed and tested for publication bias of outcome indicators when more than ten studies were included. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature screening process

The initial search yielded 388 articles, with 48 from PubMed, 134 from Web of Science, 83 from Embase, 82 from The Cochrane Library, and 41 from EBSCO. After removing duplicates and irrelevant records, 37 studies were found to be eligible for full-text reading. Finally, ten RCTs were included in the systematic review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Flow chart of literature screening

Basic characteristics

Ten RCTs totaling 364 PFPS patients were finally included (184 in the KT group and 180 in the control group). Three studies [21–23] compared KT with placebo taping, and seven studies [24–30] compared KT plus routine rehabilitation with routine rehabilitation. The average age of patients ranged from 22.4 [21] to 44.9 [24] years (Table 1).

Table 1.

Basic characteristics of included studies

Author, Year	Sample size	Age	Intervention program	Intervention time	Outcome indicators
Akbas 2011 [24]	KT: 15 (15 F) Con: 16 (15 F)	KT: 41.0 ± 11.3 Con: 44.9 ± 7.8	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Six weeks	VAS pain scores→ Kujala AKPS score→
Aytar 2011 [21]	KT: 12 (12 F) Con: 10 (10 F)	KT: 22.4 ± 1.6 Con: 26.2 ± 3.5	KT: KT Con: Placebo taping	Immediate	VAS pain scores→ Knee extension peak torque→ Knee joint position error→
Arrebola 2020 [25]	KT: 14 (14 F) Con: 16 (16 F)	KT: 27.9 ± 9.4 Con: 30.3 ± 7.9	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Six weeks	Kujala AKPS score→
Basbug 2022 [26]	KT: 15 (15 F) Con: 15 (15 F)	KT: 34.1 ± 8.9 Con: 39.0 ± 6.4	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Six weeks	VAS pain scores↓ Knee extension peak torque→ Knee flexion peak torque↑
Demirci 2017 [27]	KT: 17 (17 F) Con: 18 (18 F)	KT: 36.7 ± 7.8 Con: 37.5 ± 7.8	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Six weeks	VAS pain scores↓ Knee flexion ROM→ Kujala AKPS score→
Gunay 2017 [28]	KT: 16 (11 F, 5 M) Con: 13 (5 F, 8 M)	KT: 36.0 ± 8.0 Con: 33.8 ± 6.7	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Six weeks	VAS pain scores→ Kujala AKPS score→
Kumar 2015 [22]	KT: 15 (6 F, 9 M) Con: 15 (7 F, 8 M)	KT: 37.1 ± 3.0 Con: 36.3 ± 3.6	KT: KT Con: Placebo taping	Immediate	VAS pain scores↓
Kurt 2016 [23]	KT: 44 (25 F, 19 M) Con: 40 (24 F, 16 M)	KT: 31.6 ± 6.9 Con: 30.9 ± 7.2	KT: KT Con: Placebo taping	Two days	VAS pain scores↓ Kujala AKPS score↑ Knee extension peak torque→ Knee flexion peak torque → Knee joint position error↓
Kuru 2012 [29]	KT: 15 (12 F, 3 M) Con: 15 (14 F, 1 M)	KT: 32.9 ± 12.2 Con: 40.9 ± 10.6	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Six weeks	VAS pain scores→ Kujala AKPS score→ Knee flexion ROM→
Rehman 2020 [30]	KT: 21 (11 F, 10 M) Con: 22 (12 F, 10 M)	KT: 22.9 ± 3.30 Con: 22.5 ± 2.82	KT: KT plus routine rehabilitation Con: Routine rehabilitation	Immediate	Kujala AKPS score→

KT: Kinesio taping; F: female; M: male; Con: control; VAS: visual analog scale; AKPS: anterior knee pain scale; ROM: range of motion; ↑: The KT group was significantly higher than the control group; →: There was no significant difference between the two group; ↓: The KT group was significantly lower than the control group

Quality evaluation

The overall quality of included studies was relatively low. Seven studies [22, 24–29] reported specific methods for random sequence generation. Three studies [21, 23, 30] mentioned “random” but without details of the randomization method. Three studies [22, 25, 30] explicitly stated the allocation concealment. Three double-blind studies [21, 23, 25], and one single-blind study [30]. One study [21] reported dropout but did not provide a clear reason for the dropout (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Quality evaluation of the included literature

Clinical results

VAS pain score

Seven studies [21–24, 26, 27, 29] reported VAS pain scores, with a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I²=92%, P < 0.001), which were analyzed using a random-effects model. The evidence showed that KT significantly reduced the VAS pain scores compared to the controls (MD=-0.58, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.07, P = 0.03) (Fig. 3A).

Fig. 3.

Effect of KT on pain and functional scores. KT: Kinesio taping, (A) VAS pain score, (B) Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale Score

Subgroup analyses based on the test tasks showed that VAS pain scores were significantly lower in the KT group than in the control group during stair ascending (MD=-0.67, 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.05, P = 0.03), and squatting (MD=-1.61, 95% CI: -1.87 to -1.35, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the KT and the control groups during resting (MD = 0.53, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.27, P = 0.16), and stair descending (MD=-0.78, 95% CI: -1.90 to 1.35, P = 0.17) (Fig. 3A).

Kujala AKPS score

Six studies [23–25, 27, 29, 30] reported Kujala AKPS scores, with low heterogeneity between the studies (I²=67%, P = 0.10), which were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. The evidence showed that KT significantly increased the Kujala AKPS scores compared to the controls (MD = 2.28, 95% CI: 0.00 to 4.56, P = 0.05) (Fig. 3B).

Peak knee extension torque

Three studies [21, 23, 26] reported knee extension peak torque, with a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I²=68%, P = 0.009), which were analyzed using a random-effects model. Meta-analyses illustrated that there was no significant difference between the KT and the control groups (SMD = 0.06, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.52, P = 0.79) (Fig. 4A).

Fig. 4.

Effect of KT on knee function. KT: Kinesio taping, (A) Knee extension peak torque, (B) Knee flexion peak torque, (C) Knee extension peak torque, (D) Knee flexion range of motion

Subgroup analyses based on isokinetic test speeds showed no significant difference in knee extension peak torque between the KT and control groups at 60°/s (SMD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.70 to 0.81, P = 0.89) and 180°/s (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI: -0.63 to 0.89, P = 0.75) (Fig. 4A).

Knee flexion peak torque

Two studies [23, 26] reported knee flexion peak torque, with a high degree of heterogeneity between the studies (I²=80%, P = 0.002), which were analyzed using a random-effects model. The evidence showed that there was no significant difference between the KT and the control groups (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.27) (Fig. 4B).

Subgroup analyses based on isokinetic test speeds showed no significant difference in knee flexion peak torque between the KT and control groups at 60°/s (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI: -0.78 to 1.34, P = 0.60) and 180°/s (SMD = 0.50, 95% CI: -0.84 to 1.85, P = 0.47) (Fig. 4B).

Knee flexion range of motion

Two studies [27, 29] reported knee flexion ROM, with little heterogeneity among the studies (I²=0%, P = 0.49), which were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Meta-analyses illustrated no significant difference in knee flexion ROM between the KT and control groups (MD=-0.93, 95% CI: -4.54 to 2.68, P = 0.61) (Fig. 4C).

Knee joint position error

Two studies [21, 23] reported knee joint position error, with small heterogeneity between the studies (I²=0%, P = 0.95), which were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. The statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between the KT and control groups (MD=-0.48, 95% CI: -1.91 to 0.96, P = 0.51) (Fig. 4D).

Sensitivity analysis results

To explore the source of heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses were performed on the six outcome indicators, excluding single articles one by one, and the total effect size did not change significantly, suggesting that the results of the meta-analysis were relatively stable.

Publication bias test

Funnel plots were drawn to test publication bias for the VAS pain scores. The results showed poor symmetry of the data, indicating a high possibility of publication bias (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Publication bias test

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the effect of KT on pain and knee function in PFPS patients. The results showed that KT significantly reduced VAS pain scores and increased the Kujala AKPS score in PFPS patients compared to controls. While knee extension peak torque, knee flexion peak torque, knee flexion ROM, and knee joint position error were not significantly different among KT and control groups.

Effect of KT on pain

The results of this study show that KT can significantly reduce VAS pain scores in patients with PFPS. The gate control theory of pain is most commonly used to explain the effect of KT on pain control [31]. According to the gate control theory, KT can reduce pain by stimulating the low-threshold cutaneous mechanoreceptors [32, 33]. Another possible explanation is that KT induces the patella to move along the correct pathway [34]. Patellofemoral malalignment is the major cause of pain in patients with PFPS, and the patella normally aligned in the anatomical groove has a substantial effect on knee pain reduction [8, 35]. Previous studies have shown that KT would shift the patella posteriorly [36]. Theoretically, the posterior displacement of the patella would narrow the space between the patella and the femur, expand the contact area between the patella and the femur, and spread the load over a larger area, thereby reducing pain [36].

It is worth mentioning that the results of the subgroup analysis showed that KT significantly reduced pain during stair ascending and squatting, but not during resting and stair descending. The reason for this result is currently unclear. It may be due to the greater weight-bearing and displaced of the patella during stair climbing and squatting, produces an intense painful stimulus [37, 38]. Therefore, KT was able to fully exert its positive effect. Previous studies have shown better results with KT in patients with higher levels of pain [39]. The results of our study support the application of KT to reduce pain in patients with PFPS, but null results in low-loading tasks should be considered. In addition, the results need to be interpreted with caution because of the large heterogeneity present.

Effect of KT on muscle strength

The results of this study showed that KT did not significantly increase knee peak torque in patients with PFPS compared to controls, implying that KT did not improve knee muscle strength. Although most of the previous studies conducted in this field reported that KT did not produce increases in knee muscle strength [40]. Some studies have shown positive effects of KT on muscle strength and function [41]. The current study proposes several potential mechanisms of action of KT on muscle strength. First, KT is thought to increase muscle activation. Schleip et al. [42] reported that KT can stimulate skin mechanoreceptors and induce greater muscle recruitment. According to Mandelbaum et al., [43] these stimuli are critical to neuromuscular control and motor performance. In addition, KT can facilitate muscle contractions if it is applied from the origin of the muscle to its insertion point [44]. Due to this shortening of the muscle, the length-tension relationship of the muscle is optimized, thus increasing the ability to generate force.

However, some scholars have questioned the above mechanism. Lins et al. [45] showed that KT did not significantly improve medial femoral muscle activation. Serrão et al. [46] did not find any promoting effect of KT on hamstrings and quadriceps. On the one hand, this may be due to differences in the application protocols of KT and intervention time. Rebolledo et al. [47] explored the effects on vertical jump height of healthy athletes after applying 24 h and 72 h KT to them. The results showed that an increase in vertical jump height was observed only after 72 h of KT application. Prolonged application of KT seems to provide more stimulation to the skin and mechanoreceptors, which induce more conducive improvements in muscle function [48]. Another possible explanation is that the stimulation provided by KT can cause an increase in muscle activation, but is not sufficient to elicit changes in muscle strength [49].

Effect of KT on proprioception

Some researchers thought that adhesive taping increased proprioception by increasing feedback information from the muscle spindles, soft tissue, and skin [50]. Simon et al. [51] showed that 72 h of KT application significantly improved proprioception in patients with chronic ankle instability. Similarly, Li et al. [52] included 11 RCTs that systematically evaluated the effects of KT on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The results showed that KT significantly improved proprioception in patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, the results of this study showed that KT did not significantly reduce knee joint position errors in patients with PFPS. This may be due to the small area covered by KT of the included studies, and therefore insufficient to cause a significant improvement in proprioception. Yu et al. [53] suggested that the effect of KT on proprioceptive improvement depends on the length and area covered by KT, and with a larger area there was greater proprioceptive enhancement.

Another possible reason why our results differ from previous studies can be attributed to differences in the study population. Patients with knee osteoarthritis and chronic ankle instability showed poorer proprioception compared to healthy participants [54, 55], whereas patients with PFPS did not show significant proprioceptive loss [56]. Long et al. [57] demonstrated that KT enhanced proprioception in participants with poor functional performance, whereas KT did not demonstrate a positive effect in participants with good physical function. Wei et al. [58] also noted that patients with poor proprioception may be more sensitive to and easier to facilitate with KT, and transmit more proprioceptive information from the joint structures to the nervous system. As a result, patients with poor proprioception tended to receive more benefits than participants with good proprioception. Considering that patients with PFPS do not show reduced proprioception [56], it is unlikely to achieve significant improvement.

Effect of KT on range of motion

The elasticity of the KT allows partial to full ROM to be achieved, and therefore does not limit the ROM of the joint [59]. In addition, KT is thought to improve blood circulation, and this physiological change may affect the muscle and myofascial functions, thereby increasing knee joint ROM [60]. However, Williams et al. [40] concluded that the benefits of KT on blood circulation are negligible. A meta-analysis with main purpose evidence for KT effectiveness in sports injuries was done by Sean Williams et al. in 2012 [40]. The results showed that there is very little evidence observed in improving blood circulation and range of motion and little helpful role is found in improving strength and proprioception. These conflicting results may be explained by the differences in intervention time and population characteristics between these studies. The results of this study indicated that KT did not significantly increase knee flexion ROM. This may be since the studies included were immediate taping and this short-term stimulus was not sufficient to cause changes in blood circulation and knee flexion ROM.

Clinical implications

Aminaka et al. [61] noted that KT was able to allow the patients with PFPS to do quadriceps exercises without any pain. However, any potential benefits associated with this did not result in a significant increase in quadriceps strength. Similarly, the results of this study showed that KT reduced pain in patients with PFPS but did not improve other clinical outcomes. A key question to consider here is whether pain reduction during exercise is necessary and beneficial for patients. A recent systematic review found no evidence that pain-free exercise offered better long-term outcomes than painful exercise in musculoskeletal pain populations [62]. This is also consistent with current evidence on pain mechanisms, as experiencing pain does not always mean that an injury is occurring [63]. Nonetheless, it seems sensible to encourage patients to apply KT for pain relief during exercise to ensure patient comfort and maximize compliance [64, 65]. Additionally, due to other negative results, comprehensive therapy involving KT is recommended over its standalone use to enhance clinical efficacy.

Limitations

Admittedly, our study still has some shortcomings: Firstly, this paper did not fully consider the KT application protocol, and the treatment effects of different application protocols may be different. However, due to the limited number of literatures, subgroup analysis was not carried out in this study. Secondly, some of the literature included in this study is of low quality, and there is a certain risk of bias. Thirdly, the small number of studies involved in some of the outcome indicators undermined the reliability of the findings. Fourthly, funnel plot indicates potential publication bias, which may impact the accurate estimation of clinical efficacy. In addition, the level of heterogeneity was substantial in most parameters. Thus, these meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously.

Implications for future research

Firstly, future studies need to compare different KT protocols to identify the most effective method for PFPS. Secondly, a double-blind design should be conducted to minimize subjective bias. Finally, the search language and databases should be expanded to include more studies, thereby enhancing the reliability of the conclusions.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that Kinesio taping reduces pain in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome, but its effects on knee muscle strength, knee flexion range of motion, and knee proprioception need further investigation. Given its low cost and accessibility, Kinesio taping can be used for pain management in patellofemoral pain syndrome. Further studies should be conducted to assess the long-term effects of KT on PFPS and identify the optimal protocol.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Abbreviations

PFPS

Patellofemoral pain syndrome

KT

Kinesio taping

RCTs

Randomized controlled trials

VAS

Visual Analog Scale

AKPS

Anterior Knee Pain Scale

ROM

Range of motion

MD

Mean difference

CI

Confidence interval

SMD

Standardized mean difference

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Hailong Jiao, Xianyou Cui. Investigation: Hailong Jiao, Meng Tao. Data curation: Hailong Jiao, Meng Tao. Methodology: Hailong Jiao, Meng Tao. Supervision: Xianyou Cui. Writing– original draft: Hailong Jiao. Writing– review & editing: Xianyou Cui. Hailong Jiao and Meng Tao contributed equally to this article and share first authorship.

Funding

This study did not receive funding, grant, or sponsorship from any individuals or organizations.

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.