MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945325135 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5136408.v1

Kinesiotaping for the Rehabilitation of Rotator Cuff–Related Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2020· other· en· W6945325135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialRange of motionShoulder Impingement SyndromeClinical trialExercise therapyRotator cuff injury

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 ≤ <i>P</i> ≤ 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, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001; AHD, <i>p</i> = 0.017; pain-free ROM, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001; and full ROM abduction, <i>p</i> ≤ 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207