Why IASTM Evidence Looks Mixed — Understanding Systematic Reviews
Contrasting conclusions often reflect differences in protocols and outcomes.
TL;DR
- Divergent conclusions usually come from different populations, outcomes, and dosing—and how strictly reviews rate study bias.
- In practice, pair IASTM with exercise, education, and load management; avoid relying on it as a standalone fix.
Why conclusions differ
- Population: injured vs uninjured, acute vs chronic conditions, athlete vs general.
- Outcome: pain vs ROM vs disability/function; short‑term vs follow‑up.
- Dose & technique: edge angle, pressure, region, sets, and time per region vary widely.
- Risk of bias: blinding, allocation, sample size, selective reporting—all influence certainty ratings.
What to do with mixed evidence
- Use IASTM for short‑term ROM/comfort to facilitate the real driver: progressive, goal‑based rehab/training.
- Track meaningful outcomes (function, return‑to‑activity, symptom trajectory) rather than chasing marks/bruises.
- Prefer brief, comfort‑guided dosing (30–90s/region) and immediate follow‑up with movement and load.
FAQs
Does mixed evidence mean it doesn’t work?
It means effects depend on context (who, for what, how it’s applied). Many modalities show heterogeneity; clarity improves with precise use and better trials.
What’s the best single protocol?
None universally. Start light, keep it short, and integrate with active rehab. Adjust to the person and the task.
References
- 2022 review (very low certainty overall): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35611579/
- 2019 review (supportive for some outcomes): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709755/