4.5 Article

The clinical efficacy of Kinesio Tape for shoulder pain: A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 389-395

Publisher

J O S P T
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2791

Keywords

impingement; rehabilitation; taping

Ask authors/readers for more resources

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial using a repeated-measures design. OBJECTIVES: To determine the short-term clinical efficacy of Kinesio Tape (KT) when applied to college students with shoulder pain, as compared to a sham tape application. BACKGROUND: Tape is commonly used as an adjunct for treatment and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries. A majority of tape applications that are reported in the literature involve non-stretch tape, The KT method has gained significant popularity in recent years, but there is a paucity of evidence on its use. METHODS AND MEASURES: Forty-two subjects clinically diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis/impingement were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: therapeutic KT group or sham group. Subjects wore the tape for 2 consecutive 3-day intervals. Self-reported pain and disability and pain-free active range of motion (ROM) were measured at multiple intervals to assess for differences between groups. RESULTS: The therapeutic KT group showed immediate improvement in pain-free shoulder abduction (mean +/- SD increase, 16.9 degrees +/- 23.2 degrees; P =.005) after tape application. No other differences between groups regarding ROM, pain, or disability scores at any time interval were found. CONCLUSION: KT may be of some assistance to clinicians in improving pain-free active ROM immediately after tape application for patients with shoulder pain. Utilization of KT for decreasing pain intensity or disability for young patients with suspected shoulder tendonitis/impingement is not supported.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available