ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
The immediate effect of kinesiotaping versus neoprene brace on the ankle joint position sense in athletes with recurrent ankle sprain: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA significant factor contributing to recurrent ankle sprains is a deficit in proprioception. This study aimed to compare the effects of Kinesiotaping (KT) and Neoprene bracing (NB) on ankle joint position sense (JPS) in athletes who have experienced recurrent ankle sprains.
methodsThe study involved 66 athletes aged between 20 and 35 years who had recurrent ankle sprains. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, they were randomly divided into three groups. In Group I, KT was applied to the injured ankle, while NB was used in Group II. Group III served as the control group and received no intervention. Ankle JPS was assessed by measuring the average error in reproducing four target angles: 10° and 30° of plantar flexion, and 5° and 20° of inversion. Measurements were taken using a digital goniometer integrated with an isokinetic dynamometer device, both before and after the interventions. The pre and post-intervention values in each group was compared using paired samples t-Test (or Wilcoxon) while the comparisons between three groups were performed using ANOVA (or Kruskal-Wallis-H test).
resultsThe study findings indicated that, across all four target angles, the mean error in angle reproduction test significantly decreased after the interventions in both the KT and NB groups (P<.01), while no significant change was observed in the control group (P>.05). Furthermore, the improvements in accuracy within KT and NB groups were significantly greater compared with the control group (P<.05). Notably, for the 10° and 30° plantar flexion, the NB group showed significantly superior improvements compared to the KT group (P<.05). However, for the 5° and 20° inversion positions, KT group displayed significantly better outcomes than NB group (P<.01).
conclusionThe use of KT and NB appears to be effective interventions for enhancing ankle JPS. This suggests their potential utility as a part of rehabilitation programs aimed at reducing the risk of re-injury.
trial registrationThis clinical trial has been registered in Iranian Registry of clinical trials on 2014-08-21 (IRCT2014041217235N1).
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.