Does Kinesio Taping of the Knee Improve Pain and Functionality in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis?
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".