Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07420764

Comparison Of The Effectiveness Of Wrist Splint And Kinesiotaping Treatments In Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, is a common condition that causes pain in the elbow and forearm, especially in people who perform repetitive wrist movements. In most patients, symptoms improve over time, but in some cases, pain may persist for longer periods.Exercise programs are commonly used in treatment to reduce pain and improve arm function. Kinesiology taping is another method that may help reduce pain by improving blood circulation and supporting muscle movement. Wrist-hand splints are also used to allow the affected muscles to rest by keeping the wrist in a supported position, which may help reduce pain and improve daily activities.The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of kinesiology taping and wrist splint use in the treatment of patients with lateral epicondylitis.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Lateral Epicondylitis Arm Injuries Elbow Injuries Elbow Tendinopathy Muscular Diseases Musculoskeletal Diseases Tendinopathy Tendon Injuries Tennis Elbow Wounds and Injuries

Age range

18 year–65 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Konya Beyhekim Training and Research Hospital

Konya, 42200, Turkey (Türkiye)

About this study

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of wrist splint and kinesiotaping treatments in patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis.

A total of 150 patients aged between 18 and 65 years who were clinically diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: the kinesiotaping group, the wrist splint group, and the control group, with 50 patients in each group.

The kinesiotaping group received kinesiotaping applications twice a week for a total of six sessions using muscle inhibition and epidermis-dermis-fascia (EDF) techniques. The wrist splint group was instructed to use a static wrist-hand splint for three weeks. The control group received cold application and a home exercise program.

All groups were provided with standardized cold application and home exercise programs. Patients were evaluated at baseline, at the end of treatment, and at the fourth week after treatment. Outcome measures included pain intensity assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), grip strength measured with a Jamar dynamometer, functional status assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), quality of life assessed with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and treatment satisfaction evaluated using the Roles and Maudsley score.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of kinesiotaping using muscle inhibition and epidermis-dermis-fascia techniques and wrist splint use on pain, functional outcomes, grip strength, and quality of life in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18-65 years
  • Clinically diagnosed lateral epicondylitis
  • Elbow pain for at least 3 months
  • Ability to understand and comply with study procedures
  • Written informed consent provided

Exclusion criteria

  • Previous surgery to the affected elbow
  • Corticosteroid injection to the affected elbow within the last 6 months
  • Neurological disorders affecting the upper extremity
  • Inflammatory rheumatic diseases and fibromyalgia
  • Fracture or trauma of the upper extremity within the last 6 months
  • Pregnancy
  • Participation in another clinical study during the study period

Treatment and study plan

Kinesiotaping

Other

Kinesiotaping was applied twice a week for a total of six sessions using muscle inhibition and epidermis-dermis-fascia (EDF) techniques. In addition, participants received standardized cold application and a home exercise program.

Wrist-Hand Splint

Device

Participants were instructed to use a static wrist-hand splint for three weeks to maintain the wrist in a slightly extended position. Standardized cold application and a home exercise program were also provided.

Conservative treatment

Other

Participants received standardized cold application and a home exercise program without kinesiotaping or splint use.

Primary outcomes

  1. Pain intensity

    Time frame: All assessments were conducted by the same evaluator at baseline, at the end of the 3-week treatment period, and 4 weeks following treatment completion.

    Pain intensity was assessed using a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Grip strength

    Time frame: All assessments were conducted by the same evaluator at baseline, at the end of the 3-week treatment period, and 4 weeks following treatment completion.

    Grip strength was assessed using a Jamar dynamometer. Participants were seated with the shoulder in adduction, the elbow flexed at 90°, and the forearm positioned in neutral rotation between supination and pronation. Measurements were performed using the second and third handle settings of the dynamometer. Three consecutive trials were conducted, and the mean value was calculated and recorded in kilograms.

  2. Upper extremity function

    Time frame: All assessments were conducted by the same evaluator at baseline, at the end of the 3-week treatment period, and 4 weeks following treatment completion.

    Upper extremity function and symptoms were evaluated using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. The 30-item core section (DASH-FS) was used to assess functional status and symptom severity. In addition, the optional Work (DASH-W) and Sports/Music (DASH-SM) modules were administered when applicable. All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, and scores were calculated on a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater disability. The Turkish version of the DASH, which has established validity and reliability, was used in this study.

  3. Health-related quality of life

    Time frame: All assessments were conducted by the same evaluator at baseline, at the end of the 3-week treatment period, and 4 weeks following treatment completion.

    Health-related quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). The questionnaire evaluates eight domains, including physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, general health perception, vitality, social functioning, and mental health. Each domain is scored on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better perceived health status.

  4. Treatment satisfaction

    Time frame: All assessments were conducted by the same evaluator at the end of the 3-week treatment period, and 4 weeks following treatment completion.

    Patient satisfaction with treatment will be evaluated using the Roles and Maudsley scoring system. Post-treatment outcomes will be classified into four categories: excellent, good, acceptable, and poor.

  5. Patient-Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire) (PRFEQ)

    Time frame: All assessments were conducted by the same evaluator at baseline, at the end of the 3-week treatment period, and 4 weeks following treatment completion.

    The Patient-Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire (PRFEQ), a scoring system with established Turkish validity and reliability, was used to assess arm-related pain and functional status over the previous week (19). The questionnaire evaluates pain with 5 items and function with 10 items. Pain items are scored on a 0-10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). Functional items are also scored on a 0-10 cm VAS, ranging from 0 (extreme difficulty) to 10 (no difficulty). Mean pain and function scores, as well as the total score, are calculated for analysis.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Konya Beyhekim Training and Research Hospital

Other Gov

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2022
Primary completion
2023
Study completion
2024
First posted
Feb 19, 2026
Registry last updated
Feb 19, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.