Table 1.

Characteristics of Studies Involving Injured and Uninjured Participants Continued on Next Page

Author (Year)	Body Part/ Condition	Participants	Outcome Scales				Groups	Results	PEDro Score	Product Used
			Pain	Range of Motion	Function	Strength
Non–injury-based studies
Bailey et al4 (2015)	Shoulder	60 collegiate baseball players		X			IASTM and self-stretching Control (self-stretching)	↑ Glenohumeral HA, IR compared with control (P < .001)	7	SASTM
Heinecke et al44 (2014)	Shoulder	15 collegiate overhead athletes		X			IASTM and strength/stretch Control (strength/stretch)	↑ Left arm Apley scratch test compared with control (P = .045)	5	GT
Laudner et al46 (2014)	Shoulder	35 collegiate baseball players		X			IASTM Rest	↑ Glenohumeral HA and IR after treatment compared with control (P < .001)	6	GT
Markovic6 (2015)	Lower extremity	20 regional-level male soccer players		X			IASTM Foam rolling	↑ Hip flexion compared with foam rolling (P = .039) ↑ Pre-post hip and knee flexion at both follow-up points in IASTM group; ↑ pre-post immediate measurement only in foam-rolling group	5	FAT
Vardiman et al50 (2015)	Lower leg	11 healthy males	X	X	X	X	IASTM Control	↑ PFAQ in IASTM for daily living (P = .02) and pain (P = .006)	6	GT
Schaefer and Sandrey48 (2012)	Ankle	45 physically active HS and college students	X	X	X		IASTM w/DBT Placebo w/DBT Control (DBT)	No significant difference in any outcome between groups	6	GT
Injury-based studies
Blanchette and Normand41 (2011)	Lateral elbow epicondylopathy	27 adults	X		X	X	IASTM Control	↑ IASTM for VAS and PRTEE at 6 wk and 3 mo; ↑ grip strength at 6 wk ↑ Control for VAS and PRTEE at 3 mo; ↑ strength at 6 wk	7	GT
Sevier and Stegink-Jansen49 (2015)	Lateral elbow epicondylopathy	107 participants (113 elbows)	X		X	X	IASTM and eccentric exercise/stretching Control (eccentric exercise/stretching) Delayed IASTM (after control)	↑ DASH at 4 wk compared with control (P = .047) ↑ Grip strength at 4 wk compared with control (P = .008) 78.8% treated with IASTM resolved, 40.9% treated with only eccentric exercise resolved No significant differences between delayed group or initial IASTM group (P > .05)	6	Astym
Burke et al42 (2007)	Carpal tunnel syndrome	26 adults	X	X	X	X	IASTM SMT	IASTM maintained ↑ in VAS and symptom severity at 3 mo (P < .05) whereas SMT group increased in symptoms	5	GT
Crothers et al43 (2016)	Nonspecific thoracic pain	143 adults	X		X		IASTM SMT (HVLA to the thoracic spine) Placebo (detuned ultrasound)	No significant differences between groups in VAS or ODI	7	GT
Kivlan et al45 (2015)	Lower extremity injury	45 adults				X	Astym Placebo Control	↑ % Change in IASTM group compared with control and sham (P = .001) No significant difference between sham and control (P = .68)	6	Astym
Wilson et al51 (2000)	Patellar tendinopathy	20 adults	X		X		IASTM and stretching/strengthening Control (stretching/strengthening)	↑ PFJES in IASTM compared with control (P < .05) ↑ Pain in IASTM (P < .05) whereas control did not have significant improvements 86% IASTM treated resolved, 60% of traditional resolved	3	ASTM AdvantEDGE
McCormack et al47 (2016)	Achilles tendinopathy	16 adults	X		X		IASTM plus eccentric exercise Control (eccentric exercise)	↑ VISA-A in IASTM group compared with control at 12, 26, 52 wk (P = .03)	7	Astym

Abbreviations: ASTM, augmented soft tissue mobilization; DASH, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale; DBT, dynamic balance training; FAT, Fascial Abrasion Technique; GT, Graston Technique; HA, horizontal adduction; HS, high school; HVLA, high velocity, low amplitude; IASTM, instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization; IR, internal rotation; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PFAQ, perception of functional ability questionnaire; PFJES, patellofemoral joint evaluation scale; PRTEE, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation; SASTM, sound-assisted soft-tissue mobilization; SMT, soft tissue mobilization; VAS, visual analog scale; VISA-A, Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment Achilles-Specific Questionnaire; w/, with; X, outcome assessed; ↑ significant improvement.