Effects of Kinesiology Tape on Quadriceps Muscle Strength in Female Futsal Players: A Longitudinal Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Kinesiology tape (KT) is commonly used in sports medicine and rehabilitation, but its impact on muscle strength over time remains unclear. Female futsal athletes experience high quadriceps demands and are at risk of anterior cruciate ligament injury; however, this population remains understudied. The purpose of this study was to investigate the longitudinal effect of repeated kinesiology taping applications on quadriceps muscle strength and lower limb function in female futsal players. Method: A longitudinal pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted during the Saudi Universities Sports Federation Futsal Championship. Twelve female athletes (aged 19–25 years) were randomly allocated to a KT (n = 6) or control group (n = 6). The KT protocol followed the standardized quadriceps facilitation guidelines and was applied repeatedly over 30 days. We measured isometric strength (hand-held dynamometer), eccentric/concentric torque and power (Biodex System), and functional performance (single-leg hop). Nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann–Whitney U) and mixed ANOVA were used for analysis. Result: Post-intervention, the KT group demonstrated significant improvements in isometric strength (p = 0.03, r = 0.90), eccentric/concentric strength (p = 0.03, r = 0.90), and lower limb function (p = 0.03, r = 0.90). The between-group comparisons showed significant advantages for the KT group in isometric (p = 0.01, r = 0.83) and eccentric/concentric strength (p < 0.05, r = 0.67–0.74), but not in lower limb function (p = 0.20, r = 0.37). Conclusions: Repeated kinesiology taping over a 30-day period led to statistically greater longitudinal improvements in quadriceps muscle strength but did not affect functional performance. Kinesiology taping represents a non-invasive, low-cost treatment option for quadriceps strength measures in sports characterized by higher demands on the quadriceps, especially for female athletes with contributing injury risks. Further trials with more participants and a longer follow-up should be conducted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".