Gandhi 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: single‐centre, quasi‐experimental pilot study Setting: not reported Timing: the study was conducted for a period of 6 weeks. Interventions: control group received myofascial release therapy for the shoulder whereas the experimental group received myofascial release therapy with shoulder taping. The treatment was given on alternative days. Sample size: 38 collegiate basketball players were recruited for the study. Sample size was not calculated. Analysis: not reported
Participants	Criteria for defining the condition being treated: clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome, positive shoulder impingement test Restriction on duration of symptoms – if yes, participants specified this Inclusion criteria: male basketball players, age group 18‐22 years Exclusion criteria: history of previous injury around shoulder, severe labrum or capsule tear, patient with radiating pain, severe pain around the shoulder, allergic to tape and skin infections Baseline characteristics: Overall cohort of participants: Number of participants at enrolment: NR Number randomised: 38 Number included in analyses: 38 Age: 20 ± 2 years Sex: M 38 (100%) Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Intervention: myofascial release therapy + Kinesio Taping (KT) Mean (SD) pain (NPRS 0‐10): 6.39 (not reported) Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 79.4 (not reported) Intervention: myofascial release therapy Mean (SD) pain (NPRS 0‐10): 6.47 (not reported) Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 79.4 (not reported   Pretreatment group differences: not reported
Interventions	Experimental: kinesio taping [KT] Tape: not specified; taping method: not specified; target: deltoid; number of applications: 18; single application duration: 2 dd; provider: not reported Co‐intervention: myofascial release therapy (stretch of pectoralis minor and pectoralis major, and anterior part of deltoid) Control group: myofascial release therapy (stretch of pectoralis minor and pectoralis major, and anterior part of deltoid)
Outcomes	Pain: the numeric pain rating scales (NPRS) were used to determine the patients’ subjective assessment of pain. Pain intensity was assessed in the first visit and then on every alternate week. Functional disability: Shoulder Pain Disability Index (SPADI). Higher scores in SPADI indicate worse‐off functional disability Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments: Pain (NPRS 0‐10) Function (SPADI)
Notes	The authors did not reported any source of funding. The authors declared any conflict of interest. Trial registration: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"players were divided into two groups with equal number of participants". "Block randomization process was used" Insufficient information for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Block randomization process was used and randomly done 1 or 2 labeled envelopes to determine their groups allocation, the subjects done 1 of remaining 2 envelopes to and the process was repeated".
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	High risk	Nature of delivered intervention
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Nature of delivered intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported outcomes	High risk	No information for judgement. However, blinding of participants not possible because of the nature of the delivered intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) assessor‐reported outcomes	Low risk	No objective outcome planned and assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No data regarding loss to follow‐up. Insufficient information for judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No published protocol
Unequal use of co‐intervention	Low risk	KT with other conservative treatment versus the same conservative treatment