TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of kinesiotaping on foot posture in participants with pronated foot
T2 - A quasi-randomised, double-blind study
AU - Luque-Suarez, Alejandro
AU - Gijon-Nogueron, Gabriel
AU - Baron-Lopez, Francisco Javier
AU - Labajos-Manzanares, Maria Teresa
AU - Hush, Julia
AU - Hancock, Mark Jonathan
PY - 2014/3
Y1 - 2014/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84895073046&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.physio.2013.04.005
DO - 10.1016/j.physio.2013.04.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 23978529
AN - SCOPUS:84895073046
VL - 100
SP - 36
EP - 40
JO - Physiotherapy
JF - Physiotherapy
SN - 0031-9406
IS - 1
ER -