Hsu 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: a cross‐over, pretest/post‐test repeated measures design was used. Setting: not reported Timing: not reported Interventions: an elastic taping (Kinesio TexTM) versus a placebo taping (3 MMicropore tape) over the lower trapezius muscle Sample size: seventeen baseball players with shoulder impingement were recruited and completed the tests. Power analyses demonstrated a need for at least 30 participants per group given an SD of 20 mm VAS, a difference in pain intensity between groups of 20 mm on the VAS, at a level of 0.05 with power set at 60%. Analysis: per‐protocol analysis was executed.
Participants	Criteria for defining the condition being treated: subjects were included if they showed a positive sign in two or more shoulder impingement screening items, and in at least one of the specific subacromial impingement tests. The shoulder impingement screening items were: (1) a history of proximal anterior or lateral shoulder pain persisting for more than 1 week during the last six months; (2) painful arc with active shoulder elevation; (3) tenderness to palpation of rotator cuff tendons; (4) pain with resisted isometric shoulder abduction; (5) positive Jobe’s test (empty can test). Specific subacromial impingement tests used in this study were the Neer sign and Hawkins sign. Restriction on duration of symptoms: more than 1 week during the last six months Inclusion criteria: baseball players Exclusion criteria: (1) a history of dislocation or traumatic injuries on the tested shoulder complex; (2) a history of shoulder surgery within the last 6 months; (3) reproduction of symptoms in the cervical screening examination (active and passive range of motion, and overpressure); (4) failure to complete two testing sessions Baseline characteristics: Overall cohort of participants: Number randomised: 17 Number included in analyses: 17 Age: 23 ± 2.8 years Sex: NR Diagnosis: shoulder impingement Duration of symptoms: from 0 to 24 months (median = 2 months)   Intervention: kinesio Taping Mean (SD) pain not measured Mean (SD) function not measured Comparator: sham taping Mean (SD) pain not measured Mean (SD) function not measured Pretreatment group differences: no between‐group differences were observed.
Interventions	Intervention: kinesio Taping Tape: Kinesio tape 2 in (5 cm); taping method: Kase protocol; target: lower trapezius; number of applications: 1; single application duration: immediate; provider: not reported Control: sham taping The placebo tape was a same‐sized Y‐shaped 3 M Micropore tape (3 M, St. Paul, USA), applied over the same position without any stretch force.
Outcomes	Muscle strength: a hand‐held dynamometer (Power track II, JTech Medical industries, Utah, USA) was used to test the muscle strength of the lower trapezius. Electromyographic (EMG) activities of the upper and lower trapezius and the serratus anterior muscles during arm elevation: An 8‐channel FM/FM Telemetric EMG system (Telemyo 900,Noraxon USA, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) was used to record the myoelectric data. Scapular ROM during arm elevation: electromagnetic tracking system Adverse events Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments: Range of motion Muscle strength Adverse events
Notes	Funding: this study was sponsored by China Medical University (CMU94‐038) and Taipei City Hospital. Conflict of interest: not reported Trial registration: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"All subjects received both types of taping with the order of taping randomly assigned as the elastic taping first or the placebo taping first". No information for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"All subjects received both types of taping with the order of taping randomly assigned as the elastic taping first or the placebo taping first". No information for judgement
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Low risk	"the placebo tape was same sized..."
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Nature of delivered intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Participants were blinded to the interventions.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) assessor‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Appropriate outcome measurements for ROM, muscle strength, EMG. "the lower trapezius muscle strength was tested by a blinded examiner."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No published protocol
Unequal use of co‐intervention	Low risk	No co‐interventions