Alejandro Luque-Suarez1, Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron2, Francisco Javier Baron-Lopez3, Maria Teresa Labajos-Manzanares4, Julia Hush5, Mark Jonathan Hancock5. 1. Physiotherapy Department, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain. Electronic address: aluques@uma.es. 2. Nursing and Podiatry Department, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain. 4. Physiotherapy Department, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain. 5. Department of Health Professions, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether kinesiotaping improves excessive foot pronation compared with sham kinesiotaping. DESIGN: Quasi-randomised, double-blind study. SETTING: One primary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty participants were screened for inclusion. Sixty-eight participants with pronated feet [Foot Posture Index (FPI)≥ 6] were enrolled, and the follow-up rate was 100%. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated into one of two groups: an experimental kinesiotaping group (KT1) and a sham taping group (KT2). Measures were collected by a blinded assessor at baseline, and 1 minute, 10 minutes, 60 minutes and 24 hours after taping. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total FPI score, and the secondary outcome was rear-foot FPI score. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in total FPI score between kinesiotaping and sham taping at any time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences in rear-foot FPI score, apart from at 60-minute follow-up when the difference between groups was significant (P=0.04) but the effect size was very small (0.85 points on the rear-foot FPI score between -6 and +6). CONCLUSIONS:Kinesiotaping does not correct foot pronation compared with sham kinesiotaping in people with pronated feet.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether kinesiotaping improves excessive foot pronation compared with sham kinesiotaping. DESIGN: Quasi-randomised, double-blind study. SETTING: One primary care centre. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty participants were screened for inclusion. Sixty-eight participants with pronated feet [Foot Posture Index (FPI)≥ 6] were enrolled, and the follow-up rate was 100%. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were allocated into one of two groups: an experimental kinesiotaping group (KT1) and a sham taping group (KT2). Measures were collected by a blinded assessor at baseline, and 1 minute, 10 minutes, 60 minutes and 24 hours after taping. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total FPI score, and the secondary outcome was rear-foot FPI score. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in total FPI score between kinesiotaping and sham taping at any time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences in rear-foot FPI score, apart from at 60-minute follow-up when the difference between groups was significant (P=0.04) but the effect size was very small (0.85 points on the rear-foot FPI score between -6 and +6). CONCLUSIONS: Kinesiotaping does not correct foot pronation compared with sham kinesiotaping in people with pronated feet.
Authors: Giuseppe Marcolin; Alessandro Buriani; Andrea Giacomelli; David Blow; Davide Grigoletto; Marco Gesi Journal: Eur J Transl Myol Date: 2017-06-27
Authors: AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero; Amir Fatollahi; Ali Sheykholeslami; Valdeci Carlos Dionisio; Mohammad Akrami Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Ana Juana Pérez-Belloso; Manuel Coheña-Jiménez; Maria Eugenia Cabrera-Domínguez; Antonio Francisco Galan-González; Antonia Domínguez-Reyes; Manuel Pabón-Carrasco Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2020-11-14