Comparison of kinesio taping and sham taping in patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a clinical condition characterized by moderate to severe pain in the lower spine that severely affects the patient's life experience and leads to disability and absenteeism. In the past few years, kinesio tape (KT) have been utilized by physiotherapists as a relatively novel band-aid method to reduce the pain of musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore, in this particular study, we intended to search the effects of KT and sham KT on pain, lumbar range of motion, and disability for CLBP. METHODS: The present study was experimented in a physiotherapy clinic in the Yancheng First People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province. The study design was a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. Inclusion criteria for the study were the followings: chief complaint pain in the area between 12 ribs and hip creases with or without leg pain; ages ranges from 18 to 65; low back pain lasts <6 weeks; and at any rate medium pain intensity (pain score ≥4). Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 parallel combinations to receive either therapeutic KT or sham KT. Patients were assessed at baseline, at the end of the 12-day intervention, and at 4 weeks of follow-up. The main result measure was pain intensity using a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the secondary outcome measure was lumbar lateral flexion activity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and adverse effects including allergic reactions or skin problems. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will provide new information about the usefulness of KT as an additional component of a guideline-endorsed physiotherapy program in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry6070).
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".