Kinesiotape effects on ankle functional performance and perceived stability in chronic ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Siyang Fu; Ryusei Yamaguchi; Toshihiro Maemichi; Zijian Liu; Tsukasa Kumai

doi:10.2478/advrehab-2026-0014

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Kinesiotape effects on ankle functional performance and perceived stability in chronic ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Advances in Rehabilitation

AHEAD OF PRINT

By: Siyang Fu , Ryusei Yamaguchi , Toshihiro Maemichi , Zijian Liu and Tsukasa Kumai

Open Access

|Jul 2026

Figures & Tables

Flow diagram. CAI - chronic ankle instability, KT - kinesiotape, PEDro - physiotherapy evidence database

Meta-analyses for the effect of KT on dynamic balance (SEBT/YBT) when KT is compared with NT. AM - anterior medial, Ant - anterior, CI - confidence interval, KT - Kinesiotape, M - medial, NT - no-tape, PL - posterolateral, PM - posteromedial, SD - standard deviation, SEBT - star excursion balance test, YBT - Y balance test

Table 1.

Quality of the evidence and summary of findings in dynamic balance

Dynamic balance (SEBT)
KT vs NT
Meta-analysis	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Publication bias	Quality
Anterior	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA	Moderate
Posterolateral	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
Posteromedial	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
Medial	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
Anterior medial	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
KT vs RT
Meta-analysis	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Publication bias	Quality
Anterior	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
Posterolateral	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
Posteromedial	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
KT vs ST
Meta-analysis	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Publication bias	Quality
Anterior	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA	Moderate
Posterolateral	Serious	Serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Very low
Posteromedial	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low

[i] KT - kinesiotape, NA - not applicable, NT - no-tape, RT - rigid tape, SEBT - star excursion balance test, ST - sham tape, vs - versus.

Meta-analyses for the effect of KT on static balance (COP) when KT is compared with NT. AP - anteroposterior, CI - confidence interval, COP - centre of pressure, KT - kinesiotape, ML - mediolateral, NT - no-tape, SD - standard deviation

Table 2.

Quality of the evidence and summary of findings in static balance

Static balance (COP)
KT vs NT
Meta-analysis	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Publication bias	Quality
ML COP range	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA	Moderate
AP COP range	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA	Moderate
ML COP velocity	Serious	Not serious	Not serious	Not serious	NA	Moderate
AP COP velocity	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low
Sway area	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low

[i] AP - anteroposterior, COP - centre of pressure, KT - kinesiotape, ML - mediolateral, NA - not applicable, NT - no-tape, vs - versus.

Table 3.

Quality of the evidence and summary of findings in proprioception

Proprioception
KT vs NT
Meta-analysis	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Publication bias	Quality
Inversion	Serious	Serious	Serious	Not Serious	NA	Very low

[i] KT - kinesiotape, NA - not applicable, NT - no-tape, vs - versus.

Meta-analyses for the effect of KT on perceived stability (VAS score) when KT is compared with NT. CI - confidence interval, KT - kinesiotape, NT - no-tape, SD - standard deviation, VAS - visual analogue scale

Table 4.

Quality of the evidence and summary of findings in perceived stability

Perceived stability
KT vs NT
Meta-analysis	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Imprecision	Indirectness	Publication bias	Quality
Inversion	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	NA	Low

[i] KT - kinesiotape, NA - not applicable, NT - no-tape, vs - versus.

Supplementary Table 1.

Search strategy used for each database

Database	Date range	Fields	Search strategy
PubMed	01.2014–09.2025	Title, abstract, MeSH Terms	((“kinesio tap”[Title/Abstract] OR “kinesiotap”[Title/ Abstract] OR “elastic tap”[Title/Abstract] OR “orthotic tap”[Title/Abstract] OR “athletic tape”[MeSH Terms]) AND (“chronic ankle instability”[Title/Abstract] OR “functional ankle instability”[Title/Abstract])) AND ((English [Filter]) AND (2014:2025[pdat]))
Web of Science	01.2014–09.2025	Topic	TS= ((“kinesio tap” OR “kinesiotap” OR “elastic tap” OR “athletic tap” OR “orthotic tap*”) AND (“chronic ankle instability” OR “functional ankle instability”))
Scopus	01.2014–09.2025	Article title, abstract, keywords	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“kinesio tap” OR “kinesiotap” OR “elastic tap” OR “orthotic tap”) AND (“chronic ankle instability” OR “functional ankle instability”)) AND (PUBYEAR > 2014 AND PUBYEAR < 2025) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))
PEDro	01.2014–09.2025	Abstract, title	“Chronic ankle instability” AND “kinesiotap*”
SPORTDiscus	01.2014–09.2025		((“kinesio tap” OR “kinesiotap” OR “elastic tap” OR “athletic tap” OR “orthotic tap*”) AND (“chronic ankle instability” OR “functional ankle instability”))

[i] MeSH - Medical Subject Headings, PEDro - physiotherapy evidence database.

Supplementary Table 2.

Characteristics of the included studies

	Design	Participant characteristics (N/gender/age)	Intervention and compari son	KT application methods	Outcome measures	Applying time
Boonkerd et al. 2023³⁰	Cross-over repeated measure	28 men with CAI Age (years): 22.5 ± 3.8	KT vs ST vs NT	I-shape on TA, peroneal muscles I-shape shape around the ankle	Proprioception (JPS, TTDPM), Static balance (BESS score), Dynamic balance (SEBT	Immediately
Cheraghi et al. 2022³¹	Cross-over repeated Measure	30 collegiate athletes with CAI (11f, 19m) Age (years): 23.91 ± 2.58	KT vs NT	I-shape around ankle Y-shape around ankle and along leg	Ankle ROM, angular velocity; peak force, rate of force development, power; muscle activation during CMJ	25 minutes after KT application
Cline et al. 2018³²	Cross-over repeated measure	24 individuals with CAI Age (years): 25.2 ± 3.34	KT vs Non-elastic Tape vs NT	I-shape around ankle and along leg	Dynamic balance (SEBT), static balance (COP, TTB), perceived stability (VAS)	Immediately
Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age (years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	COP displacement of gait initiation profile	30 minutes after KT application
Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age (years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	Dynamic balance (SEBT), side hop test, figure-of-8 test	30 minutes after KT application
Boonkerd et al. 2023³⁰	Cross-over repeated measure	28 men with CAI Age (years): 22.5 ± 3.8	KT vs ST vs NT	I-shape on TA, peroneal muscles I-shape shape around the ankle	Proprioception (JPS, TTDPM), Static balance (BESS score), Dynamic balance (SEBT	Immediately
Cheraghi et al. 2022³¹	Cross-over repeated Measure	30 collegiate athletes with CAI (11f, 19m) Age (years): 23.91 ± 2.58	KT vs NT	I-shape around ankle Y-shape around ankle and along leg	Ankle ROM, angular velocity; peak force, rate of force development, power; muscle activation during CMJ	25 minutes after KT application
Cline et al. 2018³²	Cross-over repeated measure	24 individuals with CAI Age (years): 25.2 ± 3.34	KT vs Non-elastic Tape vs NT	I-shape around ankle and along leg	Dynamic balance (SEBT), static balance (COP, TTB), perceived stability (VAS)	Immediately
Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age (years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	COP displacement of gait initiation profile	30 minutes after KT application
Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age (years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	Dynamic balance (SEBT), side hop test, figure-of-8 test	30 minutes after KT application
Boonkerd et al. 2023³⁰	Cross-over repeated measure	28 men with CAI Age (years): 22.5 ± 3.8	KT vs ST vs NT	I-shape on TA, peroneal muscles I-shape shape around the ankle	Proprioception (JPS, TTDPM), Static balance (BESS score), Dynamic balance (SEBT)	Immediately
Cheraghi et al. 2022³¹	Cross-over repeated Measure	30 collegiate athletes with CAI (11f, 19m) Age (years): 23.91 ± 2.58	KT vs NT	I-shape around ankle Y-shape around ankle and along leg	Ankle ROM, angular velocity; peak force, rate of force development, power; muscle activation during CMJ	25 minutes after KT application
Cline et al. 2018³²	Cross-over repeated measure	24 individuals with CAI Age (years): 21.25 ± 3.34	KT vs Non-elastic Tape vs NT	I-shape around ankle and along leg	Dynamic balance (SEBT), static balance (COP, TTB), perceived stability (VAS)	Immediately
Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age (years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	COP displacement of gait initiation profile	30 minutes after KT application
Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age (years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	Dynamic balance (SEBT), side hop test, figure-of-8 test	30 minutes after KT application
Fereydounnia et al. 2021³⁵	Cross-over repeated measure	15 male athletes with FAI Age (years): 23.07 ± 4.76 15 healthy athletes Age(years): 23.73 ± 4.95	Distal KT vs NT	I-shape on PL	RP, APAP, velocity of COP displacement of gait initiation profile	30 minutes after KT application
Gehrke et al. 2018³⁶	Cross-over repeated measure	21 basketball athletes with CAI (7f, 14m) Age (years): 23.7 ± 3.2	KT vs RT vs NT	I-shape on TA, peroneal muscles I-shape around ankle	Dynamic balance (SEBT), figure-of-8 test, comfort	Immediately
Lim et al. 2021³⁷	Cross-over repeated measure	15 participants with CAI (6f, 9m) Age (years): 23.5 ± 1.7	KT vs DT vs NT	I-shape around ankle Y-shape around ankle and along leg	Dynamic balance (modified SEBT), static balance (COP parameters of the OLST)	Immediately
Li et al. 2022³⁸	Cross-over repeated measure	28 participants with FAI (13f/15m) Age (years): 21.2 ± 2.0	FKT vs ABT vs ST vs NT	I-shape on TA, peroneal muscles I-shape around ankle	Muscle strength (MVIC), proprioception (JPS, FS), dynamic balance (YBT scores), static balance (COP parameters of the unilateral stance)	Immediately
Safari et al. 2023³⁹	RCT	KT: 13 female volleyball players Age (years): 25.08 ± 3.23 PT: 13 female volleyball players Age (years): 24.15 ± 1.72	KT vs ST	I-shape on PL	Side hop test, single hop distance test, dynamic balance (YBT scores)	20 minutes after KT application/24 hours after KT application
Shadegani et al. 2023⁴⁰	Cross-over Repeated Measure	16 individuals with CAI (11f, 5m) Age (years): 29.37 ± 6.08	KT vs MT vs NT	I-shape on TA, peroneal muscles I-shape around ankle	Muscle Activation (The onset time and magnitude of SLR and MLR for PB, PL, TA, SOL muscles, the TA/P and SOL/TA antagonist co-activation)	24 hours after KT application
Wang et al. 2023⁴¹	Cross-over Repeated Measure	16 individuals without CAI (6f, 10m) Age (years): 23.880 ± 2.306 16 individuals with CAI (8f, 8m) Age (years): 23.060 ± 3.043	KT vs NT	I-shape on TA, TP, PL I-shape on arch of the foot	Dynamic balance (YBT scores)	Immediately
Wang et al. 2024⁴⁶	Cross-over repeated measure	21 participants with CAI (11f, 10m) Age (years): 22.0 ± 2.9	KT vs ST vs NT	I-shape on TA, PL, GM, GL	Ankle plantarflexion/inversion/eversion angle, time to peak vGRF, peak ankle dorsiflexion/eversion angle, peak ankle dorsiflexion/eversion angular velocity, peak vGRF, peak ankle dorsiflexion/eversion moment	Immediately
Yen et al. 2018⁴²	RCT	KT:8f, 2m Age (years):22.8 ± 1.3 AT:7f, 3m Age (years):23 ± 2.3	KT vs AT	I-shape around ankle	Foot position, tibial position of walking	Immediately
Yin et al. 2020⁴³	Cross-over repeated measure	35 male participants with CAI Age (years): 22.97 ± 2.81	KT vs AT vs ST vs NT	I-shape around ankle	Postural stability (SOT, US, LOS, MCT, ADT), perceived stability (VAS)	Immediately
Yin et al. 2021⁴⁴	Cross-over repeated measure	35 male participants with CAI Age (years): 22.97 ± 2.81	KT vs AT vs ST vs NT	I-shape around ankle	Muscle activation, proprioception (TTDPM)	Immediately
Yu et al. 2021⁴⁵	Cross-over repeated measure	15 individuals without CAI (7f, 8m) Age (years):23.1 ± 2.0 15 individuals with CAI (8f, 7m) Age (years):23.9 ± 2.6	KT (short/ mid/long) vs NT	I-shape on TA, TP, peroneus longus I-shape on arch of the foot	Proprioception (AIDAL)	Immediately

[i] ABT - ankle balance taping, AIDAL - ankle inversion discrimination apparatus for landing, ADT - adaptation test, APAP - anticipatory postural adjustment phase, AT - athletic tape, BESS - balance error scoring system, CAI - chronic ankle instability, CMJ - countermovement jump, COP - centre of pressure, DT - dynamic tape, FAI - functional ankle instability, FKT - facilitatory kinesio taping, FS - force sense, GL - gastrocnemius lateralis, GM - gastrocnemius medialis, JPS - joint position sense, KT - kinesiotape, LOS - limit of stability, MCT - motor control test, MLR - medium latency response, MT - mulligan tape, MVIC - maximum voluntary isometric contraction, NT - no-tape, OLST - one-leg standing test, PB - peroneus brevis, RCT - randomised controlled trial, ROM - range of motion, RP - reaction phase, SEBT - star excursion balance test, SLR - short latency response, SOL - soleus, SOT - sensory organisation test, ST - sham tape, TA - tibialis anterior, TP - tibialis posterior, TTB - time-to-boundary, TTDPM - threshold for detecting passive motion, US - unilateral stance, VAS - visual analogue scale, vGRF - vertical ground reaction force, vs - versus, YBT - Y balance test.

Supplementary Table 3.

Summary of non-pooled findings for dynamic balance

Variable	Study	Intervention and comparison	Outcome measures(units)	Additional information	Timing	Significant effect
Dynamic balance	Yin et al. 2020⁴³	KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	Ant	Immediately	p = 0.956
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	AR	Immediately	p = 0.724
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	R	Immediately	p = 0.533
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	PR	Immediately	p = 0.518
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	P	Immediately	p = 0.836
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	PL	Immediately	p = 0.842
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	L	Immediately	p = 0.619
		KT vs NT vs ST vs AT	LOS DCL (%)	AL	immediately	p = 0.201
		KT vs NT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-small slip)	Immediately	p < 0.001
		KT vs NT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-medium slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-large slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-small slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-medium slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-large slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Sway energy	ADT (Toes up)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Sway energy	ADT (Toes down)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-small slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-medium slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-large slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-small slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-medium slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-large slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Sway energy	ADT (Toes up)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Sway energy	ADT (Toes down)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-small slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-medium slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (forward-large slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-small slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-medium slip)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Amplitude scaling scores	MCT (backward-large slip)	Immediately	p = 0.035
		KT vs ST	Sway energy	ADT (Toes up)	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Sway energy	ADT (Toes down)	Immediately	ns

[i] Ant - anterior, ADT - adaptation test, AP - anterior-posterior, AT - athletic tape, DCL - directional control, KT - Kinesiotape, L - left, LOS - limit of stability, MCT - motor control test, NS - no significance, NT - no-tape, P - posterior, R - right, ST - sham tape, vs - versus.

Supplementary Table 4.

Summary of non-pooled findings for static balance

Variable	Study	Intervention and comparison	Outcome measures(units)	Additional information	Timing	Significant effect
Static balance	Boonkerd et al. 2023³⁰	KT vs placebo tape	BESS scores		Immediately	p = 0.134
		KT vs NT	BESS scores		Immediately	p = 0.032
	Yin et al. 2020⁴³	KT vs NT	SOT ES	Condition1-6	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	SOT ES	Condition1-6	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	SOT ES	Condition1-6	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	SOT COMP	Condition1-6	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	SOT COMP	Condition1-6	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	SOT COMP	Condition1-6	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Sway velocity of COG (⌧/s)	US-EO	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Sway velocity of COG (⌧/s)	US-EO	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Sway velocity of COG (⌧/s)	US-EO	Immediately	ns
		KT vs NT	Sway velocity of COG (⌧/s)	US-EC	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT	Sway velocity of COG (⌧/s)	US-EC	Immediately	ns
		KT vs ST	Sway velocity of COG (⌧/s)	US-EC	Immediately	ns

1 AT - athletic tape, BESS - balance error scoring system, COG - center of gravity, COMP - composite scores, EC - eyes closed, EO - eyes open, ES - equilibrium scores, NS - no significance, NT - no-tape, SOT - sensory organization test, ST - sham tape, US - unilateral stance, vs - versus.

Supplementary Table 5.

Summary of non-pooled findings for proprioception

Variable	Study	Intervention and comparison	Outcome measures(units)	Additional information	Timing	Significant effect
Proprioception	Yin et al. 2021⁴⁴	KT vs AT vs ST vs NT	TTDPM (°)	Inversion	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT vs ST vs NT	TTDPM (°)	Eversion	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT vs ST vs NT	TTDPM (°)	Plantar flexion	Immediately	ns
		KT vs AT vs ST vs NT	TTDPM (°)	Dorsiflexion	Immediately	ns
	Li et al. 2022³⁸	ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	PF-AEJPS (°)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	DF-AEJPS (°)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	PF-VEJPS (°)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	DF-VEJPS (°)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	PF-RAEFS(°/N)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	DF-RAEFS (°/N)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	PF-RVEFS (°/N)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs ST vs NT	DF-RVEFS (°/N)		Immediately	ns
		ABT/FKT vs sham tape vs NT	DF-RVEFS (°/N)		Immediately	ns

1 ABT - ankle balance taping, AEJPS - absolute error of joint position sense, AT - athletic tape, DF - dorsiflexion, FKT - facilitatory kinesio taping, KT - kinesiotape, NS - no significance, NT - no-tape, PF - plantarflexion, RAEFS - relative absolute error of force sense, RVEFS - relative variable error of force sense, ST - sham tape, TTDPM - threshold for detecting passive motion, VEJPS - variable error of joint position sense, vs - versus.

Supplementary Table 6.

Summary of non-pooled findings for muscle activation

Variable	Study	Intervention and comparison	Outcome measures(units)	Additional information	Timing	Significant effect
Muscle activation	Cheraghi et al. 2022	KT vs NT	LG muscle activity(%peak)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.028
		KT vs NT	MG muscle activity(%peak)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.015
		KT vs NT	TA muscle activity(%peak)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.781
		KT vs NT	PL muscle activity(%peak)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.045
	Shadegani et al. 2023⁴⁰	KT vs NT	Onset time pf MLR (ms)		Immediately	p < 0.013
		KT vs NT	Magnitude of SLR		Immediately	p < 0.001
		KT vs NT	Magnitude of MLR		Immediately	p < 0.018
		KT vs MT	Magnitude of SLR		Immediately	p < 0.005
		KT vs MT	Magnitude of MLR		Immediately	p < 0.013
	Yin et al. 2021⁴⁴	KT vs AT	LG RMS values(%MVIC)	Condition 4 during SOT	Immediately	p = 0.038
		KT vs ST	PL RMS values(%MVIC)	Forward-small translation during MCT	Immediately	p = 0.046

[i] AT - athletic tape, CMJ - countermovement jump, KT - kinesiotape, LG - lateral gastrocnemius, MCT - motor control test, MLR - medium latency response, MG - medial gastrocnemius, MT - mulligan tape, MVIC - maximum voluntary isometric contraction, RMS - root mean square, SLR - short latency response, SOT - sensory organization test, ST - sham tape, TA - tibialis anterior, vs - versus.

Supplementary Table 7.

Summary of non-pooled findings for muscle strength

Variable	Study	Intervention and comparison	Outcome measures(units)	Additional information	Timing	Significant effect
Muscle strength	Fereydounnia et al. 2019 [33, 34]	KT vs NT	Ankle evertors (N)		Immediately	p = 0.000

[i] KT - Kinesiotape, NT - no-tape, vs - versus.

Supplementary Table 8.

Summary of non-pooled findings for sports performance

Variable	Study	Intervention and comparison	Outcome measures(units)	Additional information	Timing	Significant effect
Sports performance	Cheraghi et al. 2022³¹	KT vs NT	Jump height(cm)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.001
		KT vs NT	Inversion/eversion ROM (°)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.002
		KT vs NT	Dorsi-plantar flexion ROM (°)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.006
		KT vs NT	Plantar flexion angular velocity (°/s)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.009
		KT vs NT	Average peak force(N)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p < 0.001
		KT vs NT	RFD (N/s)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p < 0.001
		KT vs NT	Peak power(W)	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p < 0.001
		KT vs NT	Joint power☒%☒total	Propulsion phase of CMJ	Immediately	p = 0.021
Sports performance	Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	KT vs NT	Figure-of-8(s)		Immediately	ns
	Fereydounnia et al. 2019^33,34	Distal KT vs NT	AP COP displacement(cm)	Anticipatory phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	ML COP displacement(cm)	Anticipatory phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	Resultant COP displacement(cm)	Anticipatory phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	AP COP displacement(cm)	Weight transfer phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	ML COP displacement(cm)	Weight transfer phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	Resultant COP displacement(cm)	Weight transfer phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	AP COP displacement(cm)	Locomotive phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	ML COP displacement(cm)	Locomotive phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	Resultant COP displacement(cm)	Locomotive phase of GI	Immediately	ns
	Fereydounnia et al. 2021³⁵	Distal KT vs NT	RP (ms)		Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	APAP (ms)		Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	VELS1(cm/s)	S1: Anticipatory phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	VELS2(cm/s)	S2: Weight transfer phase of GI	Immediately	ns
		Distal KT vs NT	VELS3(cm/s)	S3: Locomotive phase of GI	Immediately	ns
	Gehrke et al. 2018³⁶	KT vs NT	Figure-of-8(s)		Immediately	p = 0.049
	Safari et al. 2023³⁷	KT vs ST	Single hop test (cm)		20 minutes	p = 0.0003
		KT vs ST	Single hop test (cm)		24 hours	p = 0.0002
		KT vs ST	Side hop test (s)		20 minutes	p < 0.0001
	Wang et al. 2024⁴⁵	KT vs NT	Ankle plantarflexion angles (°)	Initial contact in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.001
		KT vs NT	Ankle plantarflexion angles (°)	Initial contact in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.048
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle dorsiflexion angle (°)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.012
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle dorsiflexion angle (°)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p < 0.001
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle eversion angle (°)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.043
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle eversion angle (°)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.042
		KT vs NT	Time to peak vGRF (ms)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.035
		KT vs NT	Time to peak vGRF (ms)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.024
		KT vs NT	Peak vGRF (BW)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.023
		KT vs NT	Peak vGRF (BW)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.009
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle dorsiflexion moment (Nm/kg)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.003
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle eversion moment (Nm/kg)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	P = 0.003
		KT vs NT	Peak ankle eversion moment (Nm/kg)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p < 0.0001
		KT vs ST	Peak ankle dorsiflexion angle (°)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.015
		KT vs ST	Peak ankle dorsiflexion angle (°)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.001
		KT vs ST	Peak ankle eversion angle (°)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.004
		KT vs ST	Peak ankle eversion angle (°)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.037
		KT vs ST	Time to peak vGRF (ms)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0/022
		KT vs ST	Time to peak vGRF (ms)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.031
		KT vs ST	Peak vGRF (BW)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.026
		KT vs ST	Peak vGRF (BW)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.023
		KT vs ST	Peak ankle eversion moment (Nm/kg)	Early landing phase in LSJ movements	Immediately	p = 0.002
		KT vs ST	Peak ankle eversion moment (Nm/kg)	Early landing phase in RSJ movements	Immediately	p < 0.001
	Yen et al. 2018⁴²	KT vs NT	Foot position: frontal plane (°)	Stance phase of walking zone1	Immediately	p = 0.03
		KT vs AT	Foot position change: frontal plane (°)	Stance phase of walking zone7	Immediately	P = 0.049
		KT vs AT	Tibial position change: transverse plane (°)	Stance phase of walking zone7	Immediately	p = 0.03
		KT vs AT	Tibial position change: transverse plane (°)	Stance phase of walking zone8	Immediately	p = 0.03
		KT vs AT	Tibial position change: transverse plane (°)	Stance phase of walking zone9	Immediately	p = 0.04

[i] ADT - adaptation test, AEJPS - absolute error of joint position sense, AP - anterior-posterior, APAP - anticipatory postural adjustment phase, BBS - biodex balance system, BESS - balance error scoring system, CMJ - countermovement jump, COG - center of gravity, COMP - composite scores, DCL - directional control, DF - dorsiflexion, EC - eyes closed, EO - eyes open, ES - equilibrium scores, GI - gait initiation, L - left, LG - lateral gastrocnemius, LOS - limit of stability, LSJ - left-sided jumping, MCT - motor control test, MG - medial gastrocnemius, ML - medial-lateral, MLR - medium latency response, ns - no significance, P - posterior, PF - plantarflexion, PL - posterolateral, PM - posteromedial, R - right, RAEFS - relative absolute error of force sense, RFD - rate of force development, RMS - root mean square, RP - reaction phase, RSJ - right-sided jumping, RVEFS - relative variable error of force sense, S1 - Anticipatory Phase, SEBT - star excursion balance Test, SLR - short latency response, SOT - sensory organization test, TA - tibialis anterior, TTDPM - threshold for detecting passive motion, US - unilateral stance, VEL - velocity, VEJPS - variable error of joint position sense, vGRF - vertical ground reaction force, vs - versus.