Effectiveness of kinesio taping and combined chain exercises in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Combined Chain Exercises (CCEs) and Kinesio Taping (KT) are reported individually to improve pain and physical limitations in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Objectives: This study determined the effectiveness of a 6 weeks program of Kinesio Taping (KT) and Combined Chain Exercises (CCEs) in the management of individuals with chronic knee OA. Method: The study was a 5 case series of individuals with moderate to severe chronic knee OA with a mean age of 44.58 years and mean BMI of 27.62 kg/m[2] . Each participant received a 6 weeks program of KT and CCEs. Pre-test and Post-test scores of pain intensity (PI), knee range of motion (ROM), muscle strength and general perception of recovery were assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Goniometry, Western Ontario and McMaster University Index (WOMAC), Oxford’s Muscle Grading (OMG) System and Global Rating of Care (GROC) respectively. Result: Pre-test and post-test analysis using paired t-test, revealed that all the participants had significant improvement in the variables measured after 6 weeks of intervention as compared with their baseline values (p<0.05), except for quadriceps muscle strength and knee flexion ROM which showed that these data were not significantly different from the baseline (p>0.05). Conclusion: The findings of this study concluded that a six (6) weeks program of Kinesio Taping (KT) and Combined Chain Exercises (CCEs) is effective for the improvement in pain, functional limitation, extension range of motion (ROM) and general perception of recovery in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.lt was recommended that a larger study, after obtaining appropriate ethical approval, may be done to determine the efficacy of this form of treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".