14 These convolutions, according to the creators of this technique,14 reduce the pressure in the mechanoreceptors that are located below the dermis, thereby decreasing nociceptive stimuli. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the convolutions alter the recruitment of muscles through inhibitory and excitatory neuromuscular mechanisms.14 According to the creators14 of the method, the mechanism is inhibitory or excitatory, depending on the direction of tape application. One study18 investigated the effect of the direction of Kinesio

Taping, but showed that the direction of the tape is unimportant. Nevertheless, the question of whether check details the convolutions generated by the tape are important remains because the theory that skin convolutions are the mechanism for the Kinesio Taping effects has never been tested in a high-quality, randomised controlled trial. Therefore, the research questions for this study were: 1. Is Kinesio Taping, applied according to the treatment manual (ie, generating convolutions in the skin by applying Kinesio Tape with a tension of 10 to 15%), more effective than a simple sham application (ie, not generating convolutions in the skin by applying same tape without any tension) in people with chronic low back pain? This study was a prospectively registered, two-arm, randomised, sham-controlled trial with blinded assessment this website of some outcomes. The

methods of the study were also pre-specified in a published protocol.19 A physiotherapist, who was Endonuclease unaware of the treatment allocation, screened people in order to confirm eligibility. This screening involved taking a careful medical history and a physical examination. Those who were eligible were informed about the study procedures and those who agreed to participate in the study signed a consent form. An assessor, who was blinded

to the treatment allocation, then collected the baseline data and performed an allergy test on all participants. This allergy test consisted of applying a small patch of Kinesio Tapea over the skin. Participants kept this patch on for 24 hours and were instructed to remove the patch and call the chief investigators if any allergic reaction occurred. Those without allergic reaction to the patch test were then scheduled to undergo randomisation and attend their first treatment session. Participants were randomly assigned to their treatment groups according to a randomisation scheme generated by computer and carried out by an investigator who was not involved with the recruitment and treatment of participants. The allocation of the subjects was concealed by using sequentially numbered, sealed and opaque envelopes. On the first day of treatment, the envelope allocated to the participant was opened by the physiotherapist who provided the treatments. This physiotherapist was not involved with the data collection.