Kinesiotaping for the Rehabilitation of Rotator Cuff–Related Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Kinesiotaping (KT) has been widely used in clinical practice. Current evidence is insufficient to support the use of KT for treating rotator cuff–related shoulder pain (RCRSP), as its mid- and long-term effects have not been investigated.Hypotheses:Individuals using KT will achieve faster improvements in symptoms and functional limitations compared with those not using it. They will also present a greater increase in pain-free range of motion (ROM) and acromiohumeral distance (AHD) at the end of the treatment.Study Design:Randomized controlled trial (NCT02881021).Level of evidence:Therapy, level 1b.Methods:A total of 52 individuals with RCRSP, randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups (experimental: KT; control: no-KT), underwent a 6-week rehabilitation program composed of 10 physical therapy sessions. KT was added to the treatment of the KT group. Symptoms and functional limitations were assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire (primary outcome); Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index at baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months. AHD, pain-free ROM, and full ROM were measured at baseline and at week 6. The effects of KT were assessed using a nonparametric analysis for longitudinal data.Results:No significant group × time interactions (0.112 ≤ P ≤ 0.726) were found for all outcomes. Time effects were observed as both groups showed significant improvements for all studied outcomes (DASH, BPI, and WORC, p < 0.0001; AHD, p = 0.017; pain-free ROM, p < 0.0001; and full ROM abduction, p ≤ 0.0001).Conclusion:Whereas symptoms, functional limitations, ROM, and AHD improved in both groups, the addition of KT did not lead to superior outcomes compared with exercise-based treatment alone, in the mid and long term, for individuals with RCRSP.Clinical Relevance:Clinicians should not expect supplementary mid- or long-term gains with KT to reduce pain, improve shoulder function and ROM, or increase AHD if a rehabilitation program focusing on shoulder neuromuscular control is concurrently provided as treatment for individuals with RCRSP.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".