Sikha 2017.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Study design: study sampled with random allocation Setting: NIOH, Kolkata Timing: not reported Interventions: only conventional therapy (n = 15) verus both kinesio taping and conventional therapy (n = 15) Sample size: not reported Analysis: not reported | |
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: subjects having a history of proximal anterior/lateral shoulder pain; pain beginning prior to 150 degrees of active shoulder elevation in any plane and if two or more of the specific impingement tests were found positive (Empty can test or Jobe test, Hawkins‐kennedy test, Neer’s sign); subjects with complaint of having difficulty in performing the activities of daily living Exclusion criteria: shoulder girdle fracture, glenohumeral dislocation/subluxation, cervical spine symptoms verified by Spurling’s test, history of shoulder surgery in the past 12 weeks. osteoarthritis of glenohumeral joint and clinically verified rheumatoid arthritis Restriction on duration of symptoms: not reported Baseline characteristics: Intervention: Kinesio Taping (KT) + conventional therapy Number randomised: 15 Number included in analyses: 15 Age: 44.33 (7.22) years Sex: M 9; F 6 Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Mean (SD) pain not measured Mean (SD) function (Penn Shoulder score): 32.24 (2.51) Control: only conventional therapy Number randomised: 15 Number included in analyses: 15 Age: 43.40 (7.55) years Sex: M 9; F 6 Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Mean (SD) pain not measured Mean (SD) function (Penn Shoulder score): 32.64 (4.45) Pretreatment group differences: description of both groups which were homogenous |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: kinesio taping and conventional therapy. Dosage of intervention 5 days in a week for 4 weeks (that included 15 minutes in application of KT followed by 30 minutes rest; subsequently 40 minutes engagement in activity). Tape: Kase (size not specified); taping method: Kase protocol; target: deltoid, supraspinatus, glenohumeral articulation; number of applications: not reported; duration: not reported; provider: not reported Co‐intervention: conventional exercise protocol/standard exercise protocol, adapted from the exercise given by American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeon (AAOS). Intervention of 40 min, 5 days in a week for 4 weeks in conjunction with occupational therapy remedial activities: Shoulder wheel, Finger ladder, Wall mounted overhead sanding unit, Rope and pulley, Arm ergometer Control: conventional exercise protocol/standard exercise protocol, adapted from the exercise given by American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeon (AAOS). Intervention of 40 min, 5 days in a week for 4 weeks in conjunction with occupational therapy remedial activities: Shoulder wheel, Finger ladder, Wall mounted overhead sanding unit, Rope and pulley, Arm ergometer |
|
| Outcomes | Active range of motion ‐ free of pain: flexion abduction and external rotation Function: Penn Shoulder Score (including pain, satisfaction and function) Quality of life: Health‐related quality of life: SF‐12 Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments:
|
|
| 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 | "The participants in this study were [a] sample of convenience with random allocation comprised of total 30 subjects in two groups". Insufficient information for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | "The participants in this study were [a] sample of convenience with random allocation comprised of total 30 subjects in two groups". Insufficient information for judgement |
| Blinding of participants (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Poor reporting prevented any judgement. |
| Blinding of personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Poor reporting prevented any judgement. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported outcomes | Unclear risk | "The subjects (between age of 18 to 65 years) included in this study were referred from main assessment clinic of NIOH, Kolkata". Insufficient information for judgement |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) assessor‐reported outcomes | Unclear risk | "The subjects (between age of 18 to 65 years) included in this study were referred from main assessment clinic of NIOH, Kolkata". Insufficient information for judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | "There was no drop out during the study". No information for intention‐to‐treat analysis |
| 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 |