. 2021 Aug 8;2021(8):CD012720. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012720.pub2

Thelen 2008.

*Study characteristics*
Methods	Study design: prospective, randomised, double‐blinded, clinical trial using a repeated‐measures design Setting: the Cadet Physical Therapy Clinic at the United States Military Academy or Keller Army Community Hospital at West Point, NY Timing: September 2006 to September 2007 Interventions: 2 groups: therapeutic KT group or sham KT group Sample size: forty‐two subjects clinically diagnosed with rotator cuff tendonitis/impingement were recruited. A priori power analysis demonstrated the need for at least 26 subjects per group, given a standard deviation of 25 mm (VAS), a difference in pain intensity between groups of 20 mm on the VAS, an alpha level of.05, and with power set at 80%. Analysis: to account for the missing data, the authors performed an intention‐to‐treat analysis utilising the last‐observation‐carried‐forward (LOCF) model. This technique involves using the last recorded value for each outcome measure and applying it to the remaining missing value(s).
Participants	Criteria for defining the condition being treated: pain onset prior to 150° of active shoulder elevation in any plane, positive Empty can test indicating possible supraspinatus involvement, positive Hawkins‐Kennedy test indicating possible external impingement, subjective complaint of difficulty performing activities of daily living Restriction on duration of symptoms: shoulder pain not longer than 6 months  Inclusion criteria: being 18 to 50 years of age  Exclusion criteria: shoulder girdle fracture, glenohumeral dislocation/subluxation, acromioclavicular sprain, concomitant cervical spine symptoms, a history of shoulder surgery within the previous 12 weeks Baseline characteristics: Intervention: Kinesio Tape ‐ KT Number of participants at enrolment: 21 Number randomised: 21 Number included in analyses: 21 (3 lost to follow‐up) Age: 21.3 ± 1.7 years Sex: M 19; F 2 Diagnosis: Shoulder pain Duration of symptoms (d): 19 (5‐35) Mean (SD) pain (VAS 0‐100): 44.1 (20.1) Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 37.4 (15.2) Comparator: Sham Tape ‐ ST Number of participants at enrolment: 21 Number randomised: 21 Number included in analyses: 21 (4 lost to follow‐up) Age: 19.8 ± 1.5 years Sex: M 17; F 4 Diagnosis: Shoulder pain Duration of symptoms (d): 8 (5‐30) Mean (SD) pain (VAS 0‐100): 43.9 (21.7) Mean (SD) function (SPADI): 34 (13.9) Pretreatment group differences: no meaningful differences existed between groups at baseline.
Interventions	Intervention: Kinesio Taping Tape: Kinesio tape 2 in (5 cm); taping method: Kase protocol; target: deltoid, supraspinatus, glenohumeral articulation; number of applications: 2; single application duration: 6 dd; provider: certified clinician Control: Sham Taping In this study, authors used an alternative sham taping application. The sham group sites were selected because they were the most common locations of perceived pain by patients with rotator cuff tendonitis or impingement.
Outcomes	Shoulder pain and disability: Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). The minimal clinically important change defined as greater than a 10‐point decrease in score. SPADI was measured at baseline, 3 days and 6 days after tape application. Pain intensity at the endpoint of pain‐free active shoulder ROM: the authors utilised a 100 mm VAS to record the pain intensity experienced at the endpoint of the pain‐free active ROM test. Pain at rest: 0 to 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), measured at baseline, immediately after taping, 3 days and 6 days after tape application Pain‐free active range of motion (ROM): shoulder ROM measurements of forward flexion, abduction, and scapular plane elevation were taken using a standard goniometer. ROM measurements were obtained at baseline, immediately after taping, 3 days and 6 days after tape application. Adverse events Outcomes used in this review The following outcomes were considered at the end of treatments: Pain (VAS 0‐100) Pain‐free active range of motion (ROM) Function (SPADI) Adverse events
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)	Low risk	"Subjects were assigned to 1 of 2 groups using a random‐number generator and allocation was concealed".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Subjects were assigned to 1 of 2 groups using a random‐number generator and allocation was concealed".
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Low risk	"Although the taping applications looked different, they were well concealed under short‐sleeve clothing. Therefore, we do not believe that blinding of the subjects was compromised".
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	High risk	"Prospective, randomised, double‐blinded, clinical trial"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) self‐reported outcomes	Low risk	"To avoid bias, the second author, who was blinded to the group assignment, measured outcomes". In addition, "although the taping applications looked different, they were well concealed under short‐sleeve clothing. Therefore, we do not believe that blinding of the subjects was compromised".
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	Low risk	No high percentage and unbalanced loss to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No published protocol
Unequal use of co‐intervention	Low risk	No co‐interventions

^AAOS:^{American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)} ^ACJ:^{Acromioclavicular Joint (ACJ)} ^ADL:^{Activities of daily living} ^ANOVA:^{Analysis of variance} ^ASES‐100:^{American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score} ^BMI:^{Body Mass Index} ^BPI:^{Brief Pain Inventory} ^{C‐M: Constant–Murley scale}

cm: centimeter

^{CTT: control Tension Taping} ^DASH:^{Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand} ^dd:^days ^EMG: ^{Electromyography} ^ESWT:^{Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy} ^EX:^exercise ^FLEX‐SF:^{Self‐reported flexi‐level scale of shoulder function} ^GH:^{Glenohumeral joint} ^HEP:^{Home Exercise Program} ^HILT:^{High‐intensity laser therapy} ^{KT: Kinesio Taping} ^{IQR: Interquartile range}  ^ITT:^{increasing Tension Taping}

ITT: Intention‐to‐treat analysis

^{LOCF: Last‐observation‐carried‐forward} ^MCID:^{Minimal clinically important difference} ^MMSE:^{Mini‐Mental State Examinafion} ^MRC:^{Medical Research Council scale} ^MRI:^{Magnetic resonance imaging} ^MT:^{Manual Therapy} ^NA:^{Not available} ^NR:^{Not reported} ^NEER:^{Neer's Test} ^NHP:^{Nottingham Health Profile} ^NPRS:^{Numeric pain rating scales} ^NSAID:^{Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug} ^OSS:^{Oxford Shoulder Score} ^PAM:^{Passive accessory movements} ^PCT:^{Precut kinesiology tape} ^PENN:^{PENN Shoulder Score} ^PT:^{Physical therapy} ^RC:^{Rotator cuff} ^RCT:^{Randomized controlled trial} ^RoCT:^{rotator cuff tendinopathy} ^ROM:^{Range of Motion} ^RSP:^{Round shoulder position} ^SAI:^{: subacromial impingement} ^SAIS:^{subacromial impingement syndrome} ^SD:^{Standard Deviation} ^SET:^{Supervised exercise therapy} ^SF‐12:^{12‐item Short Form Survey} ^SIS:^{Shoulder Impingement Syndrome} ^SPADI:^{Shoulder Pain Disability Index} ^SSRQ:^{Subjective Shoulder Rating Questionnaire} ^SST:^{Simple Shoulder Test} ^ST:^{Sham Taping} ^{T(0)(1)(2)(3):}^Time point ^TB‐KT:^{TheraBand Kinesiology Tape} ^TENS:^{transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation} ^TTDPM:^{Threshold to detect passive motion} ^US:^Ultrasound ^VAS:^{Visual Analogue Scale} ^WBS:^{Wong‐Baker Face Rating Scale} ^WORC:^{Western Ontario Rotator Cuff inde}