Is Kinesio Taping Effective for Sport Performance and Ankle Function of Athletes with Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI)? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Ankle injuries are the most common type of injury in healthy active individuals. If not treated properly, recurrent sprains can lead to a condition of chronic ankle instability (CAI). The aim of the present review is to evaluate the effects of Kinesio Taping (or KT) on sports performances and ankle functions in athletes with CAI. Materials and Methods: This systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out following the criteria of the Prisma Statement system (registered on Open Science Framework, number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/D8QN5). For the selection of the studies, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were used as databases in which the following string was used: (“kinesiology tape” OR “tape” OR “taping” OR “elastic taping” OR “kinesio taping” OR “neuro taping”) AND (unstable OR instability) AND (ankle OR (ankle OR “ankle sprain” OR “injured ankle” OR “ankle injury”)). The Downs and Black Scale was used for the quality analysis. The outcomes considered were gait functions, ROM, muscle activation, postural sway, dynamic balance, lateral landing from a monopodalic drop and agility. Effect sizes (ESs) were synthesised as standardized mean differences between the control and intervention groups. Calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each ES was conducted according to Hedges and Olkin. Results: In total, 1448 articles were identified and 8 studies were included, with a total of 270 athletes. The application of the tape had a significant effect size on gait functions, ROM, muscle activation and postural sway. Conclusions: The meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in gait functions (step velocity, step and stride length and reduction in the base of support in dynamics), reduction in the joint ROM in inversion and eversion, decrease in the muscle activation of the long peroneus and decrease in the postural sway in movement in the mid-lateral direction. It is possible to conclude that KT provides a moderate stabilising effect on the ankles of the athletes of most popular contact sports with CAI.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".