Comparative effects of combined physical therapy with Kinesio taping and physical therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare therapeutic effects between physical therapy (PT) combined with Kinesio taping (KT) and PT alone in knee osteoarthritis treatment. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, WangFang Data, and Google Scholar were searched until 16 April 2020. Review methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing pain reduction (visual analogue scale and numeric pain rating scale) and functional improvement (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) between PT + KT and PT in knee osteoarthritis treatment were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: A total of 15 studies with 546 patients were included, and their outcomes for one to six weeks after initial treatments were compared. An overall trend favoring PT + KT over PT alone was indicated by greater pain score reduction (mean difference (MD) = −0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.14 to −0.26; P = 0.002) and functional improvement (MD = −5.45, 95% CI = −10.23 to −0.66; P = 0.03) with the former. Significant pain reduction (MD = −0.72, 95% CI = −1.18 to −0.26; P = 0.002) and functional improvement (MD = −6.05, 95% CI = −11.18 to −0.93; P = 0.02) were reported within six weeks after initial treatments. Conclusion: Compared with PT alone, PT combined with KT provided better therapeutic effect regarding pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The additional pain reduction and functional improvement could last at least six weeks after initial treatments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".