Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2025
Assessment of the Efficacy of An Osteopathic Treatment in Infants with Biomechanical Impairments to Suckling
Published on: February 5, 2019
Outcome of kinesio taping in drooling children: A systematic review
Jeyasakthy Saniasiaya1, Graeme van der Meer2, Ed C Toll2
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Starship Children Hospital, Te Whatu Ora Te Toka Tumai Auckland, New Zealand; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Introduction:
Drooling is a troublesome condition, especially in children with neuromuscular and intellectual disability. Over the past decade, novel interventions have been trialled to alleviate drooling in the affected children. Kinesio tape (KT) application has shown promising results in controlling drooling in children. We reviewed the literature to determine the outcome of KT application in drooling children.
Methods:
A literature search was conducted from January 1, 1990 to March 2024 by searching several databases over a 1-month period (April 2024) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome was defined as the success of the intervention determined by the improvement or resolution of symptoms, and the secondary outcome was determined by adjunct or repeated procedures and the presence of complications.
Results:
Overall, 172 children from 10 studies were identified. All studies included are retrospective studies (Level III). This review included 172 children, with a mean age of 8.2 years (Male: 58.7 %). All included children had underlying comorbidities (100 %), with neurological disorders (77 %) being the most prevalent. KT application was performed predominantly over the orbicularis oris in 6 studies, 118 children[68.6 %], suprahyoid region in 3 studies, 45 children (26.2 %) and multiregion over the head and neck in 1 study of children (5.2 %). Drooling was assessed subjectively in all 100 % of children with objective measurement performed in 3 studies. KT was the only intervention in 40.7 % of the included children, whereas KT was performed in combination with oromotor therapy in 48 children, speech therapy in 44 children, and manipulation therapy in 10 children. All included children (100 %) reported improvement in drooling. No studies reported adverse reactions to KT application.
Conclusions:
KT application is a safe, effective alternative for drooling children. The effect of KT, however, may be temporary. The quality of the evidence is inadequate to recommend widespread use of the intervention until a better-quality study has been completed. Future randomised controlled studies with a large sample size are warranted to determine the efficacy of this intervention among children.
