Effectiveness of Plantar Fasciitis Taping and Calcaneal Taping in Plantar Heel Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heel pain is one of the most common foot problems especially among older individuals. Mechanical factors play very important role in heel pain. Pain under the heel on weight bearing can cause disability towards movement. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of planter facilities taping and calcaneal taping along with stretching and therapeutic ultrasound on heel pain. Methodology: It was a Quasi experimental study in which data was collected from Canada Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Center. Non Probability convenience sampling technique was used for sample collection and patient were assigned in two groups. Data was collected by using prescribed validated questionnaire, which include Standardized Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index Scale (FFI). Results: The Comparison of percentage of pain decrease post-treatment after evaluation on VAS and FFI in both groups. The decrease of pain in both indicators was significantly higher in group-A (Planter fasciitis tapping group) as compared to group-B (Calcaneal taping group). The decrease of pain in VAS significant at P=0.019 and in FFI at P =0.000 level showing that plantar fasciitis taping is more effective than calcaneal taping. Conclusion: Plantar fasciitis taping is more effective than Calcaneal taping in planter heel pain. Key Words: Heel Pain, Activities of Daily Living, Calcaneal Taping
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".