DataSheet2_Does kinesio taping plus exercise improve pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PDF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Background: Kinesio taping (KT) and exercise are described for improving pain and function of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients in most studies. However, the question remains if KT plus exercise is better than only exercise treatment.</p><p>Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of KT plus exercise in improving pain and knee function of KOA patients.</p><p>Methods: The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Springer, web of science and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) were searched till July 2022. People diagnosed with KOA were included. The intervention was KT plus exercise, but the comparison group was intervened only with exercise. Outcome measures were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and Timed Up and Go (TUG). Only RCTs were included. The Review Manager software (Version 5.3.5) was used to assess risk of bias, statistical heterogeneity and meta-analysis.</p><p>Results: The inclusion criteria were satisfied by 642 individuals from sixteen RCTs. There was a significant difference between KT plus exercise group and only exercise group in terms of VAS score after intervention (mean difference (MD) = −0.86; 95% CI = −1.32 to −0.40; p = 0.0003). In terms of VAS at follow-up period (MD = −0.58; 95% CI = −1.41 to 0.25; p = 0.17), WOMAC score (MD = 0.28; 95% CI = −9.16 to 9.71; p = 0.95) and TUG after intervention (MD = −0.74; 95% CI = −1.72 to 0.24; p = 0.14), no significant difference was found.</p><p>Conclusion: Although KT plus exercise reduced pain better than exercise, it did not enhance knee function in patients with KOA. These conclusions may change when more high-quality research is conducted.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.258 | 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 teacher head, 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".