Summary of findings 2. Kinesiotaping compared to other conservative treatment for rotator cuff disease.
| Kinesio taping compared to other conservative treatment for rotator cuff disease | ||||||
| Patient or population: rotator cuff disease Setting: outpatient Intervention: kinesio taping Comparison: other conservative treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | What happens | ||
| Without kinesio taping | With kinesio taping | Difference | ||||
| Overall pain
assessed with: rating scale from: 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain)
№ of participants: 266
(5 RCTs) follow‐up: end of treatment (6 weeks) |
‐ | The mean overall pain without kinesio taping was 0.9 points | The mean overall pain with kinesio taping was 0.46 points | MD 0.44 points better (1.33 better to 0.46 worse) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3 7 |
We are uncertain about the effect of kinesio taping on overall pain. Absolute difference 4.4% better (13% better to 4.6% worse) NNTB = N/A Relative percent change 15% better (46% better to 16% worse)8 |
| Function
assessed with: SPADI
scale from: 0 (better function) to 100 (worse function)
№ of participants: 499
(14 RCTs) follow‐up: end of treatment (4 weeks) |
‐ | The mean function without kinesio taping was 46.6 | The mean function with kinesio taping was 33.47 | MD 13.13 points better (1.99 better to 24.28 better)4 | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 5 6 | We are uncertain about the effect of kinesio taping on function. Absolute difference 13% better (24% better to 2% better) NNTB = N/A Relative percent change 18% better (32% better to 3% better)8 |
| Pain on motion
assessed with: rating scale from: 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain) № of participants: 225 (6 RCTs) follow‐up: end of treatment (4 weeks) |
‐ | The mean pain on motion without kinesio taping was 4 points | The mean pain on motion with kinesio taping was 3.94 points | MD 0.06 points better (0.68 better to 0.80 worse) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 6 7 | We are uncertain about the effect of kinesio taping on pain on motion. Absolute difference 0.6% better (7% better to 8% worse) NNTB = N/A Relative percent change = 1% better (12% better to 10% worse)8 |
| Active range of motion (shoulder abduction) without pain. Scale: 0 to 180 degrees
№ of participants: 143
(3 RCTs) follow‐up: end of treatment (6 weeks) |
‐ | The mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction without pain) without kinesio taping was 156.6 degrees | The mean active range of motion (shoulder abduction without pain) with kinesio taping was 159.64 degrees | MD 3.04 better (10.89 worse to 16.96 better) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 5 7 | We are uncertain about the effect of kinesio taping on active range of motion (shoulder abduction without pain) Absolute difference 3% better (11% worse to 17% better) NNTB = N/A Relative percent change 3% better (9% worse to 14% better)8 |
| Quality of life assessed with SF‐12 Health Survey scale from: 0 (worse QoL) to 100 (better QoL) № of participants: 30 (1 RCTs) follow‐up: end of treatment (4 weeks) |
‐ | The mean SF‐12 Health Survey without kinesio taping was 37.94 | The mean SF‐12 Health Survey with kinesio taping was 56.64 | MD 18.7 better (14.48 better to 22.92 better) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 2 7 |
Kinesio taping may improve quality of life. Absolute difference 18.7% better (14.48% better to 22.92% better) NNTB = N/A Relative percent change 53% better (41% better to 65% better)8 |
| Global assessment of treatment success № of participants: (0 studies) | ‐ | No studies reported this outcome. | ||||
| Adverse events № of participants: 391 (7 RCTs) | Due to a paucity of information, data were not meta‐analysed. | Due to a paucity of information, data were not meta‐analysed. | ‐ | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 3 6 | We are uncertain whether kinesio taping results in more people reporting adverse events | |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 We downgraded 2 levels for high heterogeneity (I2 > 90).
2 We downgraded 1 level for indirectness due to variability in control interventions.
3 We downgraded 1 level for study limitations.
4SMD back‐translated to typical scales by multiplying the SMD by the standard deviation at baseline in the control group as reported in Subasi 2016: mean (SD) for disability (SPADI): 74.8 (19.9)
5 We downgraded 1 level for high heterogeneity (I2 > 75).
6 Publication bias: missing results that could lead to non‐reporting bias
7 We downgraded 1 level for very serious imprecision (sample size).
8 Relative percent change calculation: Overall pain, calculated using baseline mean from De Oliveira 2021 = 2.9; function, calculated using baseline mean from Subasi 2016 = 74.8; pain on motion, calculated using baseline mean from Subasi 2016 = 6.8; free of pain ‐ active range of motion, calculated using baseline mean from De Oliveira 2021 = 120.5; Quality of life, calculated using baseline mean from Sikha 2017 = 35.44