Effect of Knee Orthosis and Kinesio Taping on Clinical and Neuromuscular Outcomes in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Impaired proprioception and muscle weakness may not only be a consequence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) but also part of its pathogenesis. Thus, the enhancement of quadriceps strength and proprioceptive accuracy can play a pivotal role in the management of knee OA. This study aimed to investigate the effects of Kinesio tape and flexible knee orthosis in terms of clinical and neuromuscular outcomes in patients with knee OA. Methods: This clinical trial was conducted on 56 patients with knee OA, randomly allocated to two groups: knee orthosis or Kinesio tape. The knee orthosis group wore a neoprene knee support for 4 weeks. For participants in the Kinesio tape group, tape was applied once a week, for 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and physical function evaluated through the visual analog scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster OA index. The secondary outcomes were concentric and isometric quadriceps strength, Joint Position Sense (JPS), Threshold to Detect Passive Motion (TTDPM), and force sense (FS), all measured by isokinetic dynamometry. Results: All outcome measures were significantly improved in the orthosis group. The Kinesio tape group also demonstrated significant changes in all outcome measures except three proprioception components namely JPS (70° target), FS, and TTDPM. At the end of the fourth week, there were no significant between-group differences for measured parameters. Conclusion: Wearing a flexible knee orthosis and/or Kinesio tape for 4 weeks significantly improved knee pain, physical function, and quadriceps strength. Although knee orthosis showed significant beneficial effects on various components of proprioception, there were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of the 4-week intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".