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