Does Kinesio Taping of the Knee Improve Pain and Functionality in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of Kinesio taping on the functionality, pain, range of motion (ROM), and muscle strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with a placebo Kinesio tape (KT) application. DESIGN: Forty-two consecutive patients were randomized to a KT group and a placebo taping group. The assessments were performed at baseline, after the initial KT application, the third KT application, and 1 month later. The functional status of patients was evaluated using the Aggregated Locomotor Function score and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis scale. Pain level, muscle strength, and active ROM were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a handheld dynamometer, and digital goniometer, respectively. RESULTS: Patients receiving the KT application demonstrated large decrease in VAS activity and walking task scores compared with the placebo taping group from the initial taping application to after the third taping application (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively) to the 1-month follow-up (P = 0.007 and P < 0.001, respectively). The KT group exhibited short-term improvement in VAS night and knee-flexion ROM after the 1-month follow-up (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in outcome measures in ROM and muscle strength between 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Kinesio taping resulted in superior short-term effects on walking task, pain, and knee-flexion ROM compared with placebo taping in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it