The effects of functional kinesiotaping on acromio humeral distance, pain, quality of life and disability in overhead athletes with rotator cuff tendinopathy: a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction While various interventions have been designed for managing rotator cuff tendinopathy, very little information exists on Kinesio taping in rehabilitation programs for overhead athletes. This study examines the effects of functional Kinesio taping on acromio humeral distance, pain, quality of life and disability in overhead athletes with rotator cuff tendinopathy. Material and methods A randomized clinical trial was performed with 21 patients. The participants were randomly allocated into two treatment groups via the sealed envelope method. The experimental group received Kinesio taping with a rehabilitation program while the control group received a rehabilitation program only. Both groups received a six-week intervention and were evaluated at baseline and after six weeks by ultrasonography (USG), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index (WORC), Disabilities of Shoulder, Arm and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS). Results No significant intergroup differences were found between the experimental and control groups regarding acromio humeral distance, VAS, DASH scores or WORC index (p ≥ 0.05). Within-group analysis found significant improvements in all variables (VAS, AHD, DASH scores, WORC scores) between baseline and week 6 for both groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions Both groups of overhead athletes with rotator cuff tendinopathy demonstrated improved acromiohumeral distance measured with 0° arm elevation based on ultrasound examination and pain, functional disability, and quality of life assessment after six-week intervention. However, the Kinesio taping did not provide any additional benefits over a rehabilitation program alone.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".