Effects of neuromuscular taping on muscular strength, range of motion and pain intensity in the glenohumeral joint in professional handball athletes: blinded randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent investigations in handball athletes point to the need to carry out rehabilitation programs that aim to improve the instability of the glenohumeral joint, widely used in the various tasks of this modality. Objectives: To evaluate the immediate and short‑term effects of a neurofunctional elastic bandage (NEB) on muscular strength, range of motion and pain intensity in the glenohumeral joint in handball athletes with shoulder dysfunction. Method: This study was composed of 20 professional male handball athletes who presented shoulder pain at rest and dysfunction of the shoulder, divided into two groups; experimental (n = 10) and placebo (n = 10). Before and one hour after the application of NEB the following were evaluated: maximal isometric muscular strength during movements of the glenohumeral joint (load cell), the range of motion (ROM) of the glenohumeral joint (fleximetry), pain intensity in the shoulder at rest and during movement, and the pressure pain threshold (algometry). NEB was maintained for 72 hours in all volunteers, during which a diary of shoulder pain was recorded for the short-term assessment. We used the ANOVA two-way repeated measures considering the possibility of group by time interaction, adopting a 5% level for significant differences. The treatment effect size was analyzed by means of Cohen’s d values. Results: There was no group by time interaction for any of the variables (p> 0.05), however, there was a large effect of the treatment for reducing pain in the experimental group after the application of NEB in the short-term period (d = 0.83). Conclusion: There were no significant effects on muscular strength, range of motion or pain intensity in the shoulder in handball athletes immediately after implementation of NEB.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".