Early Effects of Kinesio Taping on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kinesio tape (KT) is being applied increasingly in physical therapy and rehabilitation. This trial aimed to examine the effect of KT in terms of functional outcomes in people undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). HYPOTHESIS: KT after ARCR will reduce pain and edema. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1b. METHODS: A total of 45 patients who underwent ARCR were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 groups: KT (n = 15), sham taping (ST, n = 15), and control (n = 15). Participants received a conservative physiotherapy program. The physiotherapy program, which was conservative in nature, covered the first 7 weeks after surgery. In addition to the program, patients in the KT group were also treated with KT, while those in the ST group received ST. Pain levels (visual analog scale), edema, and functional scores (Western-Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, Modified Constant-Murley Shoulder Score, Revised Oxford Shoulder Score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index) were evaluated at regular intervals throughout the treatment. RESULTS: > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study found no efficacy of KT after ARCR in reducing pain and edema and improving shoulder function in the short- or medium-term. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should not expect additional short- or medium-term benefits from KT in reducing pain and edema or improving shoulder function after ARCR.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".