ArticleJournal of athletic training2003
Ground Reaction Forces Among Gymnasts and Recreational Athletes in Drop Landings.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peak vertical ground reaction force during two-leg landing: a systematic review and mathematical modeling.BioMed research international · 2014Pooled it
- Dynamic balance ability during single-leg drop landing across different age groups of junior gymnasts.Journal of physical therapy science · 2026Article
- Creation and Validation of a Comprehensive Instrument to Assess UI in Female Athletes and Active Women.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Modifying landing mat properties elicits different lower limb biomechanical responses in gymnasts and non-gymnasts.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Urinary Incontinence in Young Gymnastics Athletes: A Scoping Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Verification of Footwear Effects on a Foot Deformation Approach for Estimating Ground Reaction Forces and Moments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Longitudinal effects of childhood recreational gymnastics participation on bone development: The Young Recreational Gymnast Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Knee joint biomechanics and cartilage damage prediction during landing: A hybrid MD-FE-musculoskeletal modeling.PloS one · 2023Article
- A 3D-Printed Sole Design Bioinspired by Cat Paw Pad and Triply Periodic Minimal Surface for Improving Paratrooper Landing Protection.Polymers · 2022Article
- What are gender differences in lower limb muscle activity during jump-landing tasks? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Urinary and anal incontinence among female gymnasts and cheerleaders-bother and associated factors. A cross-sectional study.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Comparison between gymnasts and non-gymnasts in isometric strength of the lower limbs.European journal of translational myology · 2021Article
- The Neuromuscular Characteristics of Gymnasts' Jumps and Landings at Particular Stages of Sports Training.Journal of human kinetics · 2021Article
- Temporal Kinematic Differences between Forward and Backward Jump-Landing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Children's Single-Leg Landing Movement Capability Analysis According to the Type of Sport Practiced.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Is Physical Activity Good or Bad for the Female Pelvic Floor? A Narrative Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
- Strategies of elite Chinese gymnasts in coping with landing impact from backward somersault.PeerJ · 2019Article
- Impact of Official Matches on Soccer Referees' Power Performance.Journal of human kinetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare vertical ground reaction forces among gymnasts and recreational athletes during drop landings from 30-, 60-, and 90-cm heights. DESIGN AND
settingTwo subject groups, intercollegiate gymnasts and college-aged recreational athletes, participated in this study. Subjects completed 10 landing trials onto a force platform at each height. SUBJECTS: Ten female competitive gymnasts (height = 1.57 +/- 0.02 m, mass = 55.4 +/- 7.3 kg) and 10 female recreational athletes (height = 1.63 +/- 0.06 m, mass = 59.6 +/- 4.9 kg) volunteered for this study. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements of first peak-force magnitude (F1), time to F1 (T1), impulse to F1, second peak-force magnitude (F2), time to F2 (T2), and impulse to F2 were compiled to describe the ground reaction force profile for each trial at 30-, 60-, and 90-cm platform heights. A 2 x 3 (group x height) mixed-factors analysis of variance was calculated for each of the 6 variables.
resultsThe group-by-height interaction was significant for F1, F2, and impulse to F2. Tukey post hoc analyses revealed significantly higher values for the gymnasts than for the recreational athletes at 60- and 90-cm heights for F1 and F2 magnitudes. Differences between groups for T1, T2, impulse to F1, and impulse to F2 were not statistically significant at any height.
conclusionsDrop landings performed by female gymnasts at 60- and 90-cm heights exhibited higher vertical ground reaction forces than drop landings performed by female recreational athletes. High ground reaction forces experienced by gymnasts during landings may contribute to the incidence of lower extremity injuries.
Identifiers
14737212PMC314389What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.