Table 6 Leave one out sensitivity analysis
No. | Analysis | Meta-analysis p-value | I2 | Studies impacting the p-value upon removal | P-value upon removal | Figure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between group (Absolute force accuracy: no comparator) | ||||||
1. | Overall | 0.001 | 80% | - | No effect | S19 |
2. | Repeated measures designa | < 0.001 | 80% | - | No effect | S20 |
3. | Cross-sectional design | - | - | - | - | - |
4. | Elastic tape | 0.009 | 83% | - | No effect | S21 |
5. | Rigid tape | 0.069 | 77% | - | No effect | S22 |
6. | Healthy | 0.044 | 78% | Han [49] | 0.109 | S23 |
Hopper, Grisbrook [80] | 0.080 | |||||
Chang, Wang [82] | 0.096 | |||||
Lee, Kwon [83] | 0.051 | |||||
Chang, Chou [65] | 0.104 | |||||
7. | Medial epicondylitis |  < 0.001 | 0% | - | No effect | S24 |
8. | Lateral epicondylitis | - | - | - | - | - |
9. | Functional ankle instability with fatigue | - | - | - | - | - |
10. | Healthy (elastic tapes) | 0.092 | 84% | - | No effect | S25 |
11. | Healthy (rigid tape) | 0.123 | 0% | - | - | S26 |
12. | Medial epicondylitis (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 7 | Â | Â | ||
13. | Lateral epicondylitis (rigid tape) | - | - | - | - | - |
14. | Functional ankle instability with fatigue (elastic tape) | - | - | - | - | - |
Between group (Relative force accuracy: no comparator) | ||||||
15. | Overall | 0.018 | 60% | Hosseini, Salehi Dehno [68] | 0.065 | S27 |
Chang, Cheng [66] | 0.056 | |||||
16. | Repeated measures designa | 0.065 | 68% | Chang, Wang [82] (healthy) | 0.032 | S28 |
17. | Cross-sectional design | - | - | - | - | - |
18. | Elastic tape | Same as outcome number 15 | Â | Â | ||
19. | Rigid tape | - | - | - | - | - |
20. | Healthy | 0.03 | 71% | Hosseini, Salehi Dehno [68] | 0.069 | S29 |
Chang, Cheng [66] | 0.117 | |||||
Chang, Wang [82] | 0.973 | |||||
21. | Medial epicondylitis | 0.36 | 0% | - | No effect | S30 |
22. | Healthy (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 20 | Â | Â | ||
23. | Medial epicondylitis (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 21 | Â | Â | ||
Between group (Absolute accuracy: placebo comparator) | ||||||
24. | Overall | 0.01 | 55% | Chang, Chou [65] | 0.056 | S31 |
25. | Repeated measures designa | Same as outcome number 24 | ||||
26. | Elastic tape | Same as outcome number 24 | Â | Â | ||
27. | Rigid tape | - | - | - | - | - |
28. | Healthy | 0.007 | 56% | Chang, Chou [65] | 0.089 | S32 |
29. | Medial epicondylitis | 0.31 | 0% | - | No effect | S33 |
30. | Functional ankle instability (fatigue) | - | - | - | - | - |
31. | Healthy (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 28 | Â | Â | ||
32. | Medial epicondylitis (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 29 | Â | Â | ||
33. | Functional ankle instability-fatigue (elastic tape) | - | - | - | - | - |
Between group (Relative accuracy: placebo comparator) | ||||||
34. | Overall | 0.13 | 72% | - | No effect | S34 |
35. | Repeated measures designa | Same as outcome number 34 | Â | Â | ||
36. | Elastic tape | Same as outcome number 34 | - | - | ||
37. | Rigid tape | - | - | - | - | - |
38. | Healthy | 0.12 | 81% | - | No effect | S35 |
39. | Medial epicondylitis | 0.82 | 0% | - | No effect | S36 |
40. | Healthy (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 38 | Â | Â | ||
41. | Medial epicondylitis (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 39 | Â | Â | ||
Within group (Absolute force accuracy) | ||||||
42. | Overall | 0.11 | 74% | - | No effect | S37 |
43. | Repeated measures designa | 0.15 | 80% | - | No effect | S38 |
44. | Quasi experimental design | - | - | - | - | - |
45. | Elastic tape | 0.42 | 0% | - | No effect | S39 |
46. | Rigid tape | - | - | - | - | - |
47. | Functional ankle instability | Same as outcome number 45 | Â | Â | ||
48. | Healthy | - | - | - | - | - |
49. | Lateral epicondylitis | - | - | - | - | - |
50. | Functional ankle instability (elastic tape) | Same as outcome number 45 | Â | |||
51. | Healthy (rigid tape) | - | - | - | - | - |
52. | Lateral epicondylitis (rigid tape) | - | - | - | - | - |