Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31745732›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Is It Time We Better Understood the Tests We are Using for Return to Sport Decision Making Following ACL Reconstruction? A Critical Review of the Hop Tests.

William T Davies, Gregory D Myer, Paul J Read

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04956393 (Proof-of-Concept of the SOAR), which is not on this map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04956393 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Proof-of-Concept of the SOAR (Stop OsteoARthritis) Program: A Randomized Delayed-Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2021 to 2023Enrolled58ConditionsArthritis, Osteoarthritis, Arthritis Knee, Osteo Arthritis KneeArmsImmediate 8-Week SOAR Program, Delayed 8-Week SOAR Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. MERItestJournal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

William T DaviesAspetar, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Sports City Street, P.O. Box 29222, Doha, Qatar. williamdavies740@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6850-7105
Gregory D MyerDivision of Sports Medicine, The SPORT Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Paul J ReadAspetar, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Sports City Street, P.O. Box 29222, Doha, Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a move towards a criterion-based return to play in recent years, with 4 single-leg hop tests commonly used to assess functional performance. Despite their widespread integration, research indicates that relationships between 'passing' 'hop test criteria and successful outcomes following rehabilitation are equivocal, and, therefore, require further investigation. This critical review includes key information to examine the evolution of these tests, their reliability, relationships with other constructs, and sensitivity to change over time. Recommendations for how measurement and administration of the tests can be improved are also discussed. The evidence presented in this review shows that hop tests display good reliability and are sensitive to change over time. However, the use of more than 2 hop tests does not appear to be necessary due to high collinearity and no greater sensitivity to detect abnormality. The inclusion of other hop tests in different planes may give greater information about the current function of the knee, particularly when measured over time using both relative and absolute measures of performance. It is recommended that the contralateral limb be tested prior to surgery for a more relevant benchmark for performance, and clinicians are strongly advised to measure movement quality, as hop distance alone appears to overestimate the recovery of the knee.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesDecision MakingReturn to SportAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionExercise TestHumansRecovery of FunctionReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31745732
PMCPMC7018781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.