MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3143418575 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000025382

Systematic review shows no strong evidence regarding the use of elastic taping for pain improvement in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis

2021· review· en· W3143418575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephan Heddon, Nicole Saulnier, Jorge Mercado, Michelle Shalmiyev, Jean‐Philippe Berteau

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyKnee painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMEDLINEAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A recent trend in the field of primary knee osteoarthritis suggests that elastic tape (e.g., K-tape) relieves pressure on the joint by increasing tension on fascia. Elastic tape (ET) is expected to decrease pain and help patients to recover faster. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to analyze the efficacy of this method on pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis by using The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. DATA SOURCES: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard for reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence, we used 3 electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane, and EBSCO, and grey literature was included. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were screened for duplicates, screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and critically appraised. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: People older than 45 years old with primary osteoarthritis (OA) and application of ET. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: 2005 Oxford standard. RESULTS: Amongst all the papers found, 6 Randomized Control Trials (RCT) for a total of 392 participants met the criteria and were included in our review. Three papers out of the 6 RCT had low risks of bias. When the ET was compared to sham taping, the results show no to moderate decreases of WOMAC scores in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis. LIMITATIONS: We focused on a single index test (WOMAC) and could not perform meta-analyses. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Although ET does not provide strong adverse outcomes, our data do not support the use of ET as a treatment alone because of too slight reductions of the WOMAC score for reaching clinical efficiency. Thus, our systematic review shows no strong evidence regarding the use of elastic taping for pain improvement in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.019
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207