Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 1 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 1 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 2 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at end of treatment (no 'acute' cases).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 2 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at end of treatment (no 'acute' cases).

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 3 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 3 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at 12 months.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 4 Functional index questionnaire (FIQ) score (16 = no problems) at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 4 Functional index questionnaire (FIQ) score (16 = no problems) at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 5 Cincinnati knee activity score (100 = full activity) at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 5 Cincinnati knee activity score (100 = full activity) at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 6 WOMAC score (0: no problems to 96: extreme problems) at end of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 6 WOMAC score (0: no problems to 96: extreme problems) at end of treatment.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 7 WOMAC score (0: no problems to 96: extreme problems) at 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 7 WOMAC score (0: no problems to 96: extreme problems) at 12 months.

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 8 Referred for further treatment (after 3 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 8 Referred for further treatment (after 3 months).

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 9 Further course of physiotherapy (after 3 months).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping, Outcome 9 Further course of physiotherapy (after 3 months).

Comparison 1. Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at end of treatment Show forest plot

4

161

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐1.15, 0.85]

1.1 No exercise co‐intervention

2

62

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.91, 0.72]

1.2 Same exercises given to all participants

3

99

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.16 [‐1.67, 1.34]

2 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at end of treatment (no 'acute' cases) Show forest plot

3

141

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐0.26, 0.77]

2.1 No exercise co‐intervention

2

62

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.91, 0.72]

2.2 Same exercises given to all participants

2

79

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [‐0.18, 1.14]

3 Pain: VAS (0: no pain to 10: worst pain) at 12 months Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 No exercise co‐intervention

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Functional index questionnaire (FIQ) score (16 = no problems) at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 No exercise co‐intervention

0

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Cincinnati knee activity score (100 = full activity) at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 No exercise co‐intervention

0

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 WOMAC score (0: no problems to 96: extreme problems) at end of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 No exercise co‐intervention

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 WOMAC score (0: no problems to 96: extreme problems) at 12 months Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 No exercise co‐intervention

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Referred for further treatment (after 3 months) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 No exercise co‐intervention

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Further course of physiotherapy (after 3 months) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 No exercise co‐intervention

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.2 Same exercises given to all participants

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Patellar taping versus no or placebo taping