Eric J Hegedus1, Suzanne McDonough2, Chris Bleakley3, Chad E Cook4, G David Baxter5. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, USA. 2. Centre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies, School of Health Sciences, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, University of Ulster, Newtonabbey, County Antrim, UK. 3. Ulster Sports Academy, Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Institute, University of Ulster, Carrickfergus, UK. 4. Division of Physical Therapy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 5. School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the measurement properties of physical performance tests (PPTs) of the knee as each pertain to athletes, and to determine the relationship between PPTs and injury in athletes age 12 years to adult. METHODS: A search strategy was constructed by combining the terms 'lower extremity' and synonyms for 'performance test', and names of performance tests with variants of the term 'athlete'. In this, part 1, we report on findings in the knee. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to critique the methodological quality of each paper. A second measure was used to analyse the quality of the measurement properties of each test. RESULTS: In the final analysis, we found 29 articles pertinent to the knee detailing 19 PPTs, of which six were compiled in a best evidence synthesis. The six tests were: one leg hop for distance (single and triple hop), 6 m timed hop, crossover hop for distance, triple jump and single leg vertical jump. The one leg hop for distance is the most often studied PPT. There is conflicting evidence regarding the validity of the hop and moderate evidence that the hop test is responsive to changes during rehabilitation. No test has established reliability or measurement error as assessed by the minimal important change or smallest detectable change. No test predicts knee injury in athletes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous published articles addressing PPTs at the knee, there is predominantly limited and conflicting evidence regarding the reliability, agreement, construct validity, criterion validity and responsiveness of commonly used PPTs. There is a great opportunity for further study of these tests and the measurement properties of each in athletes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To review the measurement properties of physical performance tests (PPTs) of the knee as each pertain to athletes, and to determine the relationship between PPTs and injury in athletes age 12 years to adult. METHODS: A search strategy was constructed by combining the terms 'lower extremity' and synonyms for 'performance test', and names of performance tests with variants of the term 'athlete'. In this, part 1, we report on findings in the knee. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to critique the methodological quality of each paper. A second measure was used to analyse the quality of the measurement properties of each test. RESULTS: In the final analysis, we found 29 articles pertinent to the knee detailing 19 PPTs, of which six were compiled in a best evidence synthesis. The six tests were: one leg hop for distance (single and triple hop), 6 m timed hop, crossover hop for distance, triple jump and single leg vertical jump. The one leg hop for distance is the most often studied PPT. There is conflicting evidence regarding the validity of the hop and moderate evidence that the hop test is responsive to changes during rehabilitation. No test has established reliability or measurement error as assessed by the minimal important change or smallest detectable change. No test predicts knee injury in athletes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous published articles addressing PPTs at the knee, there is predominantly limited and conflicting evidence regarding the reliability, agreement, construct validity, criterion validity and responsiveness of commonly used PPTs. There is a great opportunity for further study of these tests and the measurement properties of each in athletes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Jackie L Whittaker; Nadine Booysen; Sarah de la Motte; Liz Dennett; Cara L Lewis; Dave Wilson; Carly McKay; Martin Warner; Darin Padua; Carolyn A Emery; Maria Stokes Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Jay R Ebert; Peter Edwards; Luke Yi; Brendan Joss; Timothy Ackland; Richard Carey-Smith; Jens-Ulrich Buelow; Ben Hewitt Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jerrod J Harrison; Marissa K Yorgey; Alexander J Csiernik; Joseph H Vogler; Kenneth E Games Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Paul W Kline; Jeremy Burnham; Michael Yonz; Darren Johnson; Mary Lloyd Ireland; Brian Noehren Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Astrid Vereijken; Inne Aerts; Jorrit Jetten; Bruno Tassignon; Jo Verschueren; Romain Meeusen; Emiel van Trijffel Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.988