Kocyigit 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial Setting: outpatient clinic Timing: not reported Interventions: KT versus sham taping Sample size: 45 patients were randomised; 41 completed the study. Type I error (α) was set at 0.05 and power of the test was selected as 0.80 and the calculated sample size appropriate to test the hypothesis and have confidence was 41. The number of patients to ensure that final sample size was achieved was calculated to be 46 when the proportion of attrition was 10%. Analysis: per‐protocol analysis was executed.
Participants	Criteria for defining the condition being treated: Neer’s impingement sign; Hawkins’ test; painful arc test; and the Jobe test applied to all participants by the same physiatrist at baseline. The patients with positive results for at least three of these tests were diagnosed with SIS. Inclusion criteria: mild–moderate shoulder pain (VAS between 20 and 70 mm); age between 18–70 years; no previous application of KTs Exclusion criteria: history of previous shoulder fracture/surgery in last 6 months; previous or concurrent diagnosis of rotator cuff tear; glenohumeral joint/ACJ osteoarthritis; cervical disc herniation accompanied by radicular symptoms; inflammatory joint disease; history of electrotherapy or injection for the shoulder in the last 3 months Baseline characteristics: Overall cohort of participants: Number of participants at enrolment: 55 Number randomised: 45 Number included in analyses: 41 Age (mean and SD, or range): 45 ± 15 years (range 20–65 years) Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Duration of symptoms: 38 ± 46 weeks (range 4–204 weeks) Intervention: Kinesio Taping (KT) Number randomised: 22 Number included in analyses: 21 (1 lost to follow‐up) Age: 50.6 ± 10.1 (range 23–65 years) Sex: M 6; F 15 Mean (SD) pain (VAS 0‐100): 48.14 (22.12) Mean (SD) function (Constant score): 54.6 (6.3) Control: sham Taping (ST) Number randomised: 23 Number included in analyses: 20 (3 lost to follow‐up) Age: 49.2 ± 8.8 (range 26–65 years) Sex: M 7; F 13 Mean (SD) pain (VAS 0‐100): 50 (21.7) Mean (SD) function (Constant scoreI): 50.5 (5.1) Pretreatment group differences: No between‐group differences were observed.
Interventions	Intervention: KT Tape: not reported; taping method: not specified; target: deltoid, ACJ articulation; number of applications: 3; single application duration: 4 dd; provider: not reported Control: ST The control group received sham taping (5 centimetres beta fix surgical hypoallergenic flexible tape) identical to the KT group. No force was applied to the tape during application, the tape merely being overlaid on the skin. Co‐interventions: An exercise program consisting of Codman pendulum exercises 10 repetitions/3 sets/day was prescribed to all patients. Use of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs was restricted, and the participants were allowed to take paracetamol 500 mg tablets per day when they experienced pain interfering with functional activities.
Outcomes	Assessments were executed at baseline, at the end of the taping period (12th day), and at one month post‐intervention Pain: pain intensity scores during activity: [0 (no pain) ‐ 100 (maximum pain)] Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS) pain intensity scores at night: [0‐100] Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS) Active ROM of abduction and flexion: shoulder ROM was measured according to the neutral zero method with a conventional goniometer. Shoulder functionality: Constant Score 0 (worst function) to 100 (better function) Quality of life: Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments: Pain Active ROM Function (Constant score) Direction of scale changed. Quality of Life (NHP)
Notes	Funding: not reported Conflict of interest: none Trial registration: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"We used the numbered envelopes method for randomisation of patients into two groups".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"We used the numbered envelopes method for randomisation of patients into two groups". Insufficient information for judgement
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Low risk	"The control group received sham taping identical to the KT group". "We do believe that blinding of the subjects was appropriate".
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	High risk	High for nature of delivered intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported outcomes	Low risk	"The control group received sham taping identical to the KT group". " We do believe that blinding of the subjects was appropriate".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) assessor‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Appropriate measurements for assessor‐reported outcome (i.e. active ROM)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No high percentage and unbalanced loss to follow‐up. Per‐protocol analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol published
Unequal use of co‐intervention	Low risk	KT with co‐intervention versus sham taping with the same co‐intervention