## 3 Results
### Functional Tests  
During the LSD test, there was a significant difference in the time x group interaction between the IG and CG with a large effect size (\(p\)-txg \(<\) 0.05, \(\eta\)2p = 0.26) (IG-T1: 151.40 \(\pm\) 11.04\({}^{\circ}\); IG-T2: 157.10 \(\pm\) 10.18\({}^{\circ}\) versus GC-T1: 156.96 \(\pm\) 5.44; GC-T2: 158.68 \(\pm\) 6.12), so the 75% tension KT bandage reduced the valgus of the knee. No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of time x group interaction in the YBT anterior (\(p\)-txg = 0.76; \(\eta\)2p = 0.01), YBT medial (\(p\)-txg = 0.93; \(\eta\)2p = 0.00), YBT lateral (\(p\)-txg = 0.53; \(\eta\)2p = 0.06), SLS (\(p\)-txg = 0.17, \(\eta\)2p = 0.10), JLT position 0 (\(p\)-txg = 0.51; \(\eta\)2p = 0.03), position 1 (\(p\)-txg = 0.20; \(\eta\)2p = 0.09), or position 2 (\(p\)-txg = 0.63; \(\eta\)2p = 0.01) (Table 3). In the time analysis, there was a significant difference in the YBT anterior (\(p\) = 0.01), the SLS (\(p\) < 0.01), and the LSD (\(p\) < 0.01).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **GROUP** & **T1** & **T2** & \(p\)**-Time** & \(p\)**-txg** & \(\eta\)**2p txg** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Anterior displacement (cm)} & IG & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.04 & & & \\  & CG & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.43 & 0.14 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Posterior displacement (cm)} & IG & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.03 & & & \\  & CG & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.05 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total displacement (cm)} & IG & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.05 & & & \\  & CG & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.05 & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{l}{T1, initial assessment; T2, final assessment; IG, intervention group (75\% tension KT); CG, control group 10\% tension KT); \(p\)-time: \(p\)-txg: \(p\)-txg: \(p\)-value time \(\times\) group assessment. \(\eta\)2p txg: effect size for the time x group interaction. All the analyses were performed with a two-way ANOVA. Significance was set at \(p<0.05\) (bold) *.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Ultrasonographic variables for comparisons of tiboferomal displacement between groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **GROUP** & **T1** & **T2** & \(p\)**-Time** & \(p\)**-txg** & \(\eta\)**2p txg** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Y balance Test} & ANT (cm) & IG & 61.95 \(\pm\) 4.73 & 60.03 \(\pm\) 4.90 & & & \\  & ANT (cm) & CG & 62.47 \(\pm\) 4.55 & 63.01 \(\pm\) 3.74 & **0.01 *** & 0.76 & 0.01 \\  & MED (cm) & IG & 71.93 \(\pm\) 6.31 & 73.96 \(\pm\) 6.91 & & & \\  & MED (cm) & CG & 73.38 \(\pm\) 5.71 & 75.21 \(\pm\) 7.49 & & & \\  & LAT (cm) & IG & 76.15 \(\pm\) 8.58 & 76.82 \(\pm\) 6.09 & & & \\  & CG & 76.22 \(\pm\) 8.19 & 78.76 \(\pm\) 6.73 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{LSD (degrees)} & IG & 151.40 \(\pm\) 11.04 & 157.10 \(\pm\) 10.18 & & & \\  & CG & 156.96 \(\pm\) 5.44 & 158.68 \(\pm\) 6.12 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{SLS (degrees)} & IG & 167.55 \(\pm\) 12.03 & 173.32 \(\pm\) 10.50 & & & \\  & CG & 169.27 \(\pm\) 6.50 & 172.75 \(\pm\) 5.86 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{JLT} & P0 (degrees) & IG & 178.87 \(\pm\) 7.40 & 178.83 \(\pm\) 6.29 & & & \\  & CG & 180.10 \(\pm\) 9.01 & 181.90 \(\pm\) 6.90 & & & \\  & PG & 186.66 \(\pm\) 10.96 & 188.42 \(\pm\) 12.59 & & & \\  & PG & 185.95 \(\pm\) 13.85 & 188.50 \(\pm\) 9.16 & & & \\  & PG & 185.68 \(\pm\) 6.26 & 185.77 \(\pm\) 8.76 & & & \\  & CG & 183.73\(\pm\) 4.57 & 184.95 \(\pm\) 7.70 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparisons between groups in the knee valgus angle and performance during functional tests.