Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40028404›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2024

Trend of effects of various kinesiotaping methods on muscle contraction performance during fatigue: A randomized, crossover study.

Huan-Jui Yeh, Ruo-Yan Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Huan-Jui YehInstitute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3096-1043
Ruo-Yan WuDepartment of Physical Therapy and Assistive Technology, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-2346-6789

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the effects of different kinesiotaping methods on muscle contraction of fatigued biceps. Patients and methods: Between April 01, 2019 to September 30, 2019, a total of 24 adults (11 males, 13 females; mean age: 31.8±6.1 years; range, 24 to 47 years) were recruited in the study. Each participant needed to receive all four types of tape attachment, including facilitation attachment (from origin to insertion), relaxation attachment (from insertion to origin), cross attachment, and control attachment after fatigue procedure. The order of taping approaches was randomly assigned. The outcome parameters were maximal isometric contraction strength, peak contraction speed, maximal 10-s power, and isokinetic contraction work. Results: The results revealed no significant differences among the four tape attachment methods for any of the parameters. However, the facilitation attachment exhibited the highest trend of improvement in all muscle contraction performance during fatigue, and the cross attachment exhibited the lowest trend of improvement in maximal isometric contraction and speed. Conclusion: None of the kinesiotape attachment methods significantly enhanced the contraction of fatigued muscles regardless of the attachment direction, including origin to insertion, insertion to origin and cross. Facilitation attachment exhibited the most effective trend of improvement and is, therefore, recommended for clinical applications. Cross attachment was not suggested to use due to the least effective trend.

Indexed as

Cross attachmentfacilitation attachmentfatiguekinesiotaperelaxation attachment.

Identifiers

PMID40028404
PMCPMC11868867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.