Kinesio Taping Improves Perceptions of Pain and Function of Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Although increasingly used for therapeutic treatment, only limited evidence exists regarding the effects of kinesio taping on patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Objective: To determine the effects of kinesio taping on pain, function, gait, and neuromuscular control concerning patients with knee OA. Design: Randomized sham-controlled trial. Setting: University laboratory. Participants: A total of 141 patients (65.1 [7.0] y) with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of knee OA. Intervention: Kinesio tape, sham tape, or no tape for 3 consecutive days. Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported pain, stiffness, and function were measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Further tests included the Balance Error Scoring System, 10-m walk test, the maximum voluntary isometric contraction force of the quadriceps femoris, and knee active range of motion. Results: At baseline, there were no differences in all outcomes between groups except for knee flexion. Significant effects were found for WOMAC pain (tape vs sham, P = .05; tape vs control, P = .047), stiffness (tape vs sham, P = .01; tape vs control, P .001), and physical function (tape vs sham, P = .03; tape vs control P = .004). No interactions were found for balance, muscle strength, walking speed, or active range of motion. Conclusion: Wearing kinesio tape for 3 consecutive days had beneficial effects regarding self-reported clinical outcomes of pain, joint stiffness, and function. This emphasizes that kinesio taping might be an adequate conservative treatment for the symptoms of knee OA.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".