Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025
Author Spotlight: Developing Low-Tech Balance Assessment Methods for Broad-Spectrum Healthcare Applications
Published on: September 1, 2023
The effects of Kinesio taping on static and dynamic balance in children with down syndrome: a randomized controlled
Pelin Atalan Efkere1, Tülay Tarsuslu2
1Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Aim:
This study aimed to determine the effects of Kinesio tape applied to the plantar soles on static and dynamic balance in children with Down syndrome (DS).
Materials And Methods:
The study was carried out in children with DS. The participants were grouped as Kinesio Taping (KT) (n = 12, DS) and Sham Taping (ST) (n = 12, DS). The Functional Reach Test (FRT) was used to evaluate functional balance and the Fast-Timed Up and Go (FAST-TUG) test to evaluate functional balance and capacity. The Modified Clinical test of Sensory Interaction on Balance (MCTSIB) was used to evaluate static balance. For both groups, all the assessments were made three times: at baseline (T0), right after the taping application (T1), and 40-45 minutes later (T2).
Results:
Baseline FAST-TUG, FRT, and Eyes Open (EO) and Closed (EC) Sway velocity scores of the KT (medians- FAST-TUG:7.75 s, FRT:23.90 cm, EO: 0.70 deg/s, EC: 0.60 deg/s) and ST (medians-FAST-TUG:7.98 s, FRT:24 cm, EO: 0.85 deg/s, EC: 0.95 deg/s) groups were similar (p >0.05). Intragroup comparisons showed that FAST-TUG and FRT scores improved after the taping compared with T0 values in both KT (KT (FAST-TUG:7.75s-FRT:23.90cm)/KT1(FAST-TUG:7.55 s-FRT:28.25cm), KT(FAST-TUG:7.75s-FRT:23.90cm)/KT2(FAST-TUG:6.85s-FRT:27.50cm)) and ST groups (ST(FAST-TUG:7.98s-FRT:24cm)/ST1(FAST-TUG:7,95s-FRT:26.40cm), ST(FAST-TUG:7.98s-FRT:24cm)/ST2(FAST-TUG:7.26s-FRT:26.15cm)) (p < 0.05), while the sway velocity values were similar before and after the taping (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Taping on the plantar soles of children with DS may be affecting the immediate dynamic balance scores while it actually did not affect the static balance scores independent of the technique used. The interpretation of the results of this study should be made with caution. Further studies with long-term evaluations are needed.
