Subasi 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: single‐centre RCT Setting: outpatients who reported to the Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Department of Antalya Training and Research Hospital Timing: not reported Interventions: kinesiological taping versus subacromial injection therapy Sample size: 70 patients were recruited for the study. Analysis: intention‐to‐treat analysis planned and executed; or ITT planned, but per‐protocol executed; not reported
Participants	Criteria for defining the condition being treated: the patients with one or more positive results for specific tests such as Neer’s, Hawkins, painful arc, supraspinatus and 0° abduction, or supraspinatus lesion revealed by radiological imaging were diagnosed as SIS. Restriction on duration of symptoms: shoulder pain which had been ongoing for over a month Exclusion criteria: other disorders causing shoulder pain Baseline characteristics: Intervention: Kinesio Taping (KT) Number randomised: 35 Number included in analyses: 35 Age: 53.46 ± 10.7 years Sex: M 15; F 20 Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Duration of symptoms: 2.9 ± 1.5 months Mean (SD) pain (VAS 0‐10): 6.60 (1.6) Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 76.9 (18.9) Control: Subacromial injection Number randomised: 35 Number included in analyses: 35 Age: 54.29 ± 10.4 years Sex: M 8; F 27 Diagnosis: subacromial impingement syndrome Duration of symptoms: 2.7 ± 1.3 months Mean (SD) pain (VAS 0‐10): 6.8 (1.5) Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 74.8 (19.9) Pretreatment group differences: in the baseline assessment, no significant differences were detected between the groups.
Interventions	Intervention: KT Tape: Kinesio tape 2 in (5 cm); taping method: Kase protocol; target: deltoid, supraspinatus, glenohumeral articulation; number of applications: 3; single application duration: 5 dd; provider: the same physiotherapist.  Co‐intervention: Home Exercise Program: A 3‐month exercise program was prescribed for both groups including stretching and strength exercises. Stretching exercises were prescribed for 7 days per week over 3 months. The exercises were performed as a home‐based program and described by the same physiotherapist. All patients were given an illustrated leaflet containing descriptions of the recommended exercises. Control: subacromial injection Betamethasone (sodium phosphate and acetate) (1 cc) plus prilocaine (4 cc) was injected into the subacromial space in the group 1 patients, by the same physiatrist. The posterior approach was preferred and was performed at 1 cm medial and inferior to the posterior corner of the acromion. Co‐intervention: Home Exercise Program, a 3‐month exercise program was prescribed for both groups including stretching and strength exercises. Stretching exercises were prescribed for 7 days per week over 3 months. The exercises were performed as a home‐based program and described by the same physiotherapist. All patients were given an illustrated leaflet containing descriptions of the recommended exercises.
Outcomes	All patients were assessed at baseline and at 1 and 3 months post‐intervention Pain: visual analogue scale (VAS) for movement pain ROM: for all planes, measured by using goniometer in both active and passive manner Shoulder function: the SPADI questionnaire Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments: Pain (VAS 0‐10) Active range of motion ‐ free of pain (ROM) Function (SPADI)
Notes	Funding: none 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 patients were randomly assigned into two groups using the numbered envelopes method".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"The patients were randomly assigned into two groups using the numbered envelopes method".
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	Poor reporting prevented any judgement.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) assessor‐reported outcomes	Low risk	Appropriate measurements for assessor‐reported outcomes (i.e. active ROM)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No flow chart was reported and no information for judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No protocol was published; passive ROM was planned but not reported in the Results section.
Unequal use of co‐intervention	Low risk	KT with co‐intervention versus conservative treatment with the same co‐intervention