Comparison of the Efficacy of Conventional Physical Therapy Modalities and Kinesio Taping Treatments in Shoulder Impingement Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of kinesio taping (KT) treatments and conventional physical therapy (PT) modalities that are applied to reduce pain and improve physical movements and functions of patients with sub acromial impingement syndrome (SIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. The first group was assigned KT plus home exercise program (HEP) for 15 days. The second group was given 15 sessions of PT and HEP. Patients were assessed using active joint range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; rest, movement, and night pain), the Society of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation (ASESS-100), Constant-Murley (C-M) scale, and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index at before and after treatment and at the end of the study (first month control visit). RESULTS: Physical therapy was found to be more effective than KT when these two treatment modalities were assessed based on ASESS-100, WORC index values, night pain, and movement pain. PT and KT treatments have similar effects in active ROM, rest pain, and C-M scale. At the end of the study, they were found to have similar effects except the night pain value. PT was found to be more effective for night pain than KT. CONCLUSION: Physical therapy was concluded to be more effective after treatment. The application of KT does not appear to be an alternative treatment method for SIS, but it can provide a potential supportive care for SIS. However, the outcomes suggest that KT can provide a remarkable benefit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".