Effects of kinesiotape versus low-Dye tape on pain and comfort measures in patients

Key points

1. 01Kinesiotape produced a 2.0-point greater pain reduction on the VAS on day 1 (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.2) compared to low-dye tape, a clinically meaningful difference
2. 02Both tapes reduced pain, but the advantage of kinesiotape narrowed after day 2 and was not statistically significant from day 3 onward
3. 03Kinesiotape scored significantly higher for mobility (9.3 vs 5.8), comfort (9.0 vs 5.3), and hygiene comfort (7.4 vs 3.8), all with large effect sizes (d > 0.8)
4. 04No participants using kinesiotape reported increased sweating; 55% using low-dye tape did
5. 05Low-dye tape came off early in 45% of participants vs 10% with kinesiotape (p = 0.013)

How it was conducted

Design

Two-arm randomized clinical trial

Participants

40 adults with acute plantar fasciitis (VAS pain >3, ultrasound-confirmed fascia thickness 4 mm greater than contralateral foot), mean age 50 years, no prior treatment

Groups

Kinesiotape (n=20) vs low-dye tape (n=20), single application worn for 4 to 5 days

Primary outcome

Visual analog scale (VAS) pain 0 to 10, assessed at baseline and every 24 hours for 5 days, then 24 hours after tape removal

Secondary outcomes

Mobility, comfort, hygiene comfort (all 0 to 10 VAS), plus durability, sweating, and allergic reactions

Analysis

Repeated-measures ANOVA with post hoc C-Dunnett and Tukey tests; Cohen's d effect size; 95% CI

What they found

• Day 1 between-group pain difference: 2.0 points (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.2); kinesiotape 3.4 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.4) vs low-dye 5.4 (95% CI: 4.6 to 6.1); Cohen d = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.6); p (group) = 0.023
• Day 2 between-group pain difference: 1.7 points (95% CI: 1.5 to 1.9); kinesiotape 2.8 vs low-dye 4.5; Cohen d = 0.9; p (group) = 0.002
• Day 3 between-group difference: 0.9 points (95% CI: 0.7 to 1.1); p (group) = 0.054 (not significant)
• Day 4 between-group difference: 0.7 points (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9); p (group) = 0.100 (not significant)
• Follow-up (24 h after removal) between-group difference: 0.1 points (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.2); p (group) = 0.464
• Mobility at follow-up: kinesiotape 9.3 (95% CI: 8.8 to 9.7) vs low-dye 5.8 (95% CI: 5.0 to 6.6); difference 3.5 (95% CI: 3.3 to 3.7); p < 0.001; Cohen d = 2.0 (95% CI: 1.4 to 3.0)
• Comfort at follow-up: kinesiotape 9.0 (95% CI: 8.6 to 9.3) vs low-dye 5.3 (95% CI: 4.4 to 6.1); difference 3.7 (95% CI: 3.5 to 3.9); p < 0.001; Cohen d = 2.4 (95% CI: 1.5 to 3.1)
• Hygiene comfort at follow-up: kinesiotape 7.4 (95% CI: 6.8 to 8.0) vs low-dye 3.8 (95% CI: 3.2 to 4.4); difference 3.6 (95% CI: 3.4 to 3.7); p < 0.001; Cohen d = 2.5 (95% CI: 1.7 to 3.4)
• Early tape removal: 10% kinesiotape vs 45% low-dye tape (difference 35%); p = 0.013
• Sweating reported: 0% kinesiotape vs 55% low-dye tape; p < 0.001; Cohen d = 7.6 (95% CI: 5.8 to 9.4)
• No allergic reactions in either group

Limitations

• Small sample size (n=40) from a single university podiatry clinic limits generalisability
• Participants could not be blinded to treatment type as the tapes are visually distinct, introducing potential performance bias
• Tape was applied once only; the study does not address whether changing the bandage after 2 to 3 days could extend effectiveness
• The trial assessed an acute phase only; long-term outcomes and effectiveness as part of a combined therapy programme were not evaluated

Why it matters

For patients

People with acute plantar fasciitis may find kinesiotape provides faster pain relief in the first two days and is more comfortable to wear day-to-day than traditional rigid low-dye tape.

For clinicians

When choosing a taping strategy for acute plantar fasciitis, kinesiotape offers a clinically important pain advantage in the first 48 hours and superior comfort metrics, though both tapes lose their comparative pain advantage by day 3.

For readers

This small but well-designed RCT fills a gap in the literature by directly comparing these two common taping approaches; results support kinesiotape as the preferred option in the acute phase, pending replication in larger trials.