ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2024
Trend of effects of various kinesiotaping methods on muscle contraction performance during fatigue: A randomized, crossover study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.