Keenan 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: placebo‐controlled quasi‐experimental study Setting: research laboratory Timing: not reported Interventions: kinesio tape versus placebo taping Sample size: 30 subjects participated in the study. Sample size for a repeated measures ANOVA of within‐between factors was calculated a priori using an α = 0.05, power of at least 80%, moderate effect size (0.30), moderate correlation among repeated measures (0.60), and three groups with two testing sessions per subject. 27 subjects per group were required for this study (9 healthy controls, 9 SIS taped with KT, 9 SIS taped with Coverroll®). Based on potential attrition of 10%, total sample size was increased to 30 (10 per group). Analysis: per‐protocol analysis was executed.
Participants	Criteria for defining the condition being treated: positivity at each of these three tests: Neer’s Test, Hawkins‐Kennedy Test, and Painful Arc Test Restriction on duration of symptoms: localised shoulder pain for a minimum of two weeks Inclusion criteria: presence on the day of testing with clinical signs of SAIS Exclusion criteria: healthy subjects had no current shoulder pathology, neuromuscular disease, and peripheral neuropathy; previous history of shoulder complex fracture, surgery, or injection; and previous history of cervical spine or brachial plexus injury. Subjects with SAIS were free from neuromuscular disease and peripheral neuropathy as well as having no previous history of shoulder complex fracture/surgery, cervical spine injury, or brachial plexus injury. Baseline characteristics: Intervention: Kinesio Taping Number randomised: 10 Number included in analyses: 10 Age: 24.91 ± 5.14 years Sex: M 5; F 5 Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Mean (SD) pain not measured Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 32.77 (13.93) Control: sham Taping Number randomised: 10 Number included in analyses: 10 Age: 23.78 ± 3.17 years Sex: M 8; F 2 Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Mean (SD) pain not measured Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 25.31 (17.15) Control 2: Kinesio Tape on healthy subjects Number randomised: 10 Number included in analyses: 10 Age: 25.78 ± 3.78 years Sex: M 3; F 7 Diagnosis: none Mean (SD) pain not measured (healthy subjects) Mean (SD) disability not measured (healthy subjects) Pretreatment group differences: Statistical differences in gender composition between groups
Interventions	Intervention: KT Tape: Kinesio tape 2 in (5 cm); taping method: Kase protocol; target: deltoid, supraspinatus, coracoid process; number of applications: 1; single application duration: immediate; provider: the same clinician Control: ST Sham taping procedures followed Kase protocol, using Cover‐Roll tape.
Outcomes	Measures pre/post‐treatment: Scapular kinematics: passive video‐based motion capture system Muscle strength (shoulder internal and external rotation): isokinetic dynamometry Shoulder proprioception: threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments: Muscle strength
Notes	Funding: Freddie H. Fu, MD Graduate Research Award and the University of Pittsburgh School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Research Development Fund Conflict of interest: none Trial registration: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	"SAIS subjects were alternatively allotted at the time of enrolment".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"SAIS subjects were alternatively allotted at the time of enrolment". Insufficient information for judgement
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Low risk	"Subjects were blinded as to which tape they received".
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Nature of delivered intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported outcomes	Low risk	No information for judgement. However, "Subjects were blinded as to which tape they received".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) assessor‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Appropriate measurements for assessor‐reported outcomes (i.e. muscle strength)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No high percentage and unbalanced loss to follow‐up. No intention‐to‐treat analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No published protocol
Unequal use of co‐intervention	Low risk	No co‐interventions