This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to study the effectiveness of shoulder taping and conventional treatment vs sham taping and conventional treatment in prevention of shoulder injuries in patients with acute stroke.
Methods: This study was a multicenter, interventional, prospective, randomized, outcome-blinded trial (PROBE design). All first-ever stroke patients were included within 48 hours of stroke onset (August 2009–October 2011). The treatment group included shoulder taping and conventional treatment, and the control group received sham taping and conventional treatment. Primary outcomes were changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and secondary outcomes were changes in shoulder range of motion (flexion and abduction) at days 14 and 30. Clinical trials registration no. NCT 01062308.
Results: There were 80 patients in the treatment arm and 82 in the control arm. There was a better reduction of VAS (on day 14: mean difference 3.7 mm, p = 0.45; on day 30: 11.9 mm, p = 0.03) and SPADI scores (on day 14: mean difference 3.5, p = 0.33; on day 30: 9.3, p = 0.04) in the treatment arm.
Conclusions: Although there was a trend toward pain reduction and functional improvement associated with shoulder taping for 2 weeks after acute stage of stroke, this did not reach statistical significance. The long-term effects of taping need to be studied in large trials.
Classification of evidence: This study provided Class III evidence that tri-pull shoulder taping was ineffective in significantly reducing shoulder pain in patients with acute stoke.
GLOSSARY
- CI=
- confidence interval;
- ROM=
- range of motion;
- SPADI=
- shoulder pain and disability index;
- VAS=
- visual analog scale
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Supplemental data at www.neurology.org
- Received July 3, 2012.
- Accepted October 5, 2012.
- © 2013 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
