肌内效贴布治疗肱骨外上髁炎疗效的系统评价和Meta分析

Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Kensiotaping in the Treatment of External Humeral Epicondylitis

摘要: 目的：系统评价肌内效贴布对肱骨外上髁炎的疗效。方法：方法计算机检索PubMed、web of science、Pedro、Cochrane library、万方、维普、中国学术杂志(CNKI)、中国生物医学相关文献数据库(CBM)从我国大学校园建库到2020年11月关于肌内效贴布技术治疗肱骨外上上炎的随机调查与对照实证实践研究(RCT)。将被纳入的文献在网络上进行了筛选，资料的提取，质量评估和风险评价后，使用RevMan5.4软件对其进行了Meta分析。结果：共纳入13项RCT研究，共计706例受试者。Meta分析结果显示：肌内效贴与无刺激组VAS比较，合并效应量MD = −1.17，95% CI (−3.06, 0.73)，Z = 1.21，P = 0.23，疗效可能优于无刺激组；肌内效贴组和假刺激组VAS比较，超声波亚组合并效应量MD = −2.02，95% CI (−2.38, −1.65)，Z = 10.82，P < 0.00001，体外冲击波亚组合并效应量MD = −0.20，95% CI (−0.39, −0.01)，Z = 2.11，P = 0.03，疗效优于假治疗组；肌内效组和理疗组VAS比较，合并效应量MD = 0.16，95% CI (0.03, 0.28)，Z = 2.47，P = 0.01，疗效不如理疗组；肌内效组和理疗组PRTEE比较，合并效应量MD = 0.92，95% CI (−0.44, 2.29)，Z = 1.33，P = 0.18，疗效可能优于理疗组。结论：肌内效贴布在一定程度上可以改善患者疼痛，在改善功能障碍方面不明显。

Abstract: Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of kensiotaping on external humeral epicondylitis. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of kensiotaping in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of humerus were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Pedro, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, Weipu, Chinese academic journals (CNKI) and China Biomechanical Literature Database (CBM) by computer from establishment to November 2020. The included literatures were screened, data extraction, quality assessment and risk assessment, and Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software. Results: A total of 13 RCT studies with 706 subjects were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the combined effect size of VAS, MD = −1.17, 95% CI (−3.06, 0.73), Z = 1.21, P = 0.23, VAS comparison showed that kensiotaping was better that of the non- stimulation group. The combined effect size of ultrasonic subgroup was MD = −2.02, 95% CI (−2.38, −1.65), Z = 10.82, P < 0.00001, and the combined effect size of extracorporeal shock wave subgroup was MD = −0.20, 95% CI (−0.39, −0.01), Z = 2.11, P = 0.03, which showed that kensiotaping was better than that of sham group in VAS. VAS comparison between the kensiotaping group and the physiotherapy group showed that the combined effect size MD = 0.16, 95% CI (0.03, 0.28), Z = 2.47, P = 0.01, the efficacy was inferior to that of the physiotherapy group. The combined effect size MD = 0.92, 95% CI (−0.44, 2.29), Z = 1.33, P = 0.18 in PRTEE between kensiotaping group and physiotherapy group, suggesting that the efficacy of PRTEE may better than that of physiotherapy group. Conclusion: Kensiotaping can improve pain in patients to some extent, but it is not obvious in improving dysfunction.