Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparsion of outcome variables characterizing the measurement of the SP, SPAP variable at baseline and after application of KT between injured and healthy side in Experimental group

From: Does kinesiotaping can improve static stability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A randomized single-blind, placebo‐controlled trial

  Baseline Post X difference
(95% CI)
pa ESa
X±SD X±SD
SP
[mm]
Experimental
injured
1107.3±288.8 927.8±295.9 -179.5 (1.81 to 2.01) <0.001 0.61
Experimental
healthy
945.3±319.47 935.8±347.9 -9.5 (1.34 to 1.56) 0.308 0.02
pb 0.043 0.132    
ESb 0.53 0.02    
SPAP
[mm]
Experimental
injured
818.3±238.4 622.4±254.8 -195.9 (2.05 to 2.91) <0.001 0.79
Experimental
healthy
644.8±394.9 628.9±337.1 -15.9 (1.76 to 1.97) 0.478 0.04
pb 0.032 0.254    
ESb 0.53 0.02    
SPML
[mm]
Experimental
injured
763.9±238.6 681.2±234.0 -82.7 (2.21 to 3.34) 0.031 0.35
Experimental
healthy
690.4±276.3 683.8±230.2 -6,6 (1.53 to 1.79) 0.222 0.02
pb 0.045 0.632    
ESb 0.28 0.01    
MV
[mm/s]
Experimental
injured
36.7±8.7 32.2±9.3 -4.5 (1.11 to 1.43) 0.039 0.49
Experimental
healthy
32.8±6.2 31.7±5.9 1.1 (1.54 to 2.01) 0.121 0.18
pb 0.041 0.179    
ESb 0.51 0.06    
MVAP
[mm/s]
Experimental
injured
23.2±5.8 19.2±7.6 -4 (1.23 to 3.12) 0.043 0.59
Experimental
healthy
18.8±4.1 19.5±4.8 0.7 (0.23 to 1.95) 0.097 0.15
pb 0.036 0.213    
ESb 0.87 0.04    
MVML
[mm/s]
Experimental
injured
24.4±6.8 20.3±6.5 -4.1 (0.34 to 2.47) 0.031 0.61
Experimental
healthy
19.6±5.9 19.1±4.8 -0.5 (0.12 to 2.11) 0.173 0.09
pb 0.046 0.095    
ESb 0.75 0.21    
  1. Experimental injured – injured side; Experimental healthy – healthy side