Background: Fascia manipulation is gaining attention due to their potential benefits in pain management, neuromuscular function, and tissue healing. However, the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unclear, limiting treatment optimization. Objectives: This scoping review (ScR) aimed to summarize current evidence on the physiological, structural, and neuromuscular mechanisms underlying fascia manipulation as a therapeutic intervention. Methods: This ScR followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Scopus, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP was conducted in January 2025. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Results: Eleven studies were included: eight on humans and three on animals. In humans, manual therapy triggered a transient local inflammatory response, raising temperature without activating coagulation or thrombosis risk. It also reduced unbound water in deep fascia, aiding pain relief and mobility. Animal studies showed anti-inflammatory effects via cytokine regulation and adenosine receptor involvement, with caffeine blocking pain relief. Massage-like stroking produced opioid-independent analgesia. Fascia manipulation relieved pain from densification and improved proprioception. Neuromusculary, it enhanced reaction time, movement efficiency, and motor performance, lasting up to a week. Conclusions: This ScR suggests that fascia manipulation exerts its therapeutic effects through a combination of anti-inflammatory cytokine modulation, mechanoreceptor stimulation, and improvement in fascial gliding and proprioceptive feedback. These mechanisms collectively support its role in pain relief and neuromuscular function. Further research using standardized protocols and objective outcome measures is needed to validate and expand upon these findings.

Objectives: Systematic reviews are crucial for evidence-based medicine, but authors may add spin. This study investigated the prevalence of spin in abstracts and main texts of systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals and explored associated factors. Design: This meta-epidemiological study secondary analysis 200 systematic reviews from rehabilitation journals (2020–2022) focusing on pairwise meta-analyses of health interventions. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Spin was defined as reporting that highlights a beneficial effect greater than shown by results. We classified spin into misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, inappropriate extrapolation, and multiple spins based on analysis of the main text and Results: Spin was present in 154 (77.0%) systematic reviews in the main text and 151 (75.5%) in the Misleading interpretation was the most common category (86.4% in main text, 85.4% in abstract). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 use was associated with reduced spin (odds ratio = 0.27 [95% CI = 0.13–0.57] for main text; OR = 0.39 [95% CI = 0.20–0.76] for abstract). Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of spin in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals. To avoid spin in the SRs of rehabilitation journals, the authors must adhere to guidelines, such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.

Purpose: Sarcopenic obesity (SO) is a global concern characterized by the co-existence of sarcopenia and obesity. Although various interventions are recommended for SO, inconsistent definitions represent a barrier to clinical practice. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of rehabilitation interventions for SO based on the definitions provided by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism and the European Association for the Study of Obesity. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across nine databases, with a final search conducted on February 27, 2024. The eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case–control studies without restrictions on language, country, sex, or publication date. The risk-of-bias assessment focused on muscle strength, physical function, and body composition. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies. Results: Four randomized controlled trials involving 246 participants were included, all of which were conducted in communities. In addition, three studies comprised exclusively female participants, and all four studies employed resistance exercises. One study used a combination of resistance exercises and nutritional interventions. The overall risk of bias was high for all outcomes. Conclusion: The reported studies emphasized the limited number of studies covering diverse populations and settings. Further studies with improved methodological rigor are essential to identify effective rehabilitation strategies for SO. Registration: The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wak9n/ ) on January 31, 2024.