ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2020
ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF GLUTEAL RECRUITMENT: AN EXPLORATION OF ACTIVATION DURING JUMPING TASKS.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Critical Review of Trunk and Hip Exercise Prescription: Applying Evidence for a Modern Approach.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- Hip Manipulation Increases Electromyography Amplitude and Hip Joint Performance: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInability to maintain proper alignment of the pelvis and femur due to gluteal muscle weakness has been associated with numerous lower extremity pathologies. Therefore, many lower extremity rehabilitation and injury prevention programs employ exercises that target gluteal muscle strength and activation. While information regarding muscle activation during exercises that are typically done in the beginning stages of rehabilitation is available, evidence regarding the gluteal muscle activity during more functional and advanced exercises used during later stages of rehabilitation is sparse. PURPOSE: To explore the recruitment of the gluteal muscles during jumping tasks in healthy participants to determine which jumping exercise best elicits gluteal muscle activation. STUDY
designProspective cohort design.
methodsEighteen healthy recreational athletes (23.5 ± 3.8 years, 8M/10F, 67.56 ± 3.2 inches, 66.73 ± 9.5 kg) completed three trials of four jumping tasks: hurdle jump, split jump, V2 lateral jump, and cross-over jump in random order. Surface EMG electrodes were placed on each participant's bilateral gluteus medius (GMed) and maximus (GMax) to measure muscle activity during the jumping tasks. Maximal voluntary isometric muscle contraction (MVIC) was established for each muscle group in order to express each jumping task as a percentage of MVIC and allow standardized comparison across participants. EMG data were analyzed for all jumps using a root-mean-square algorithm and smoothed with a 62.5 millisecond time reference. Rank ordering of muscle activation during jumping tasks was performed utilizing the peak percent MVIC recorded during each jumping task.
resultsThree of the jumping tasks produced greater than 70% MVIC of the GMed muscle. In rank order from highest EMG value to lowest, these jumping tasks were: crossover jump (103% MVIC), hurdle jump (93.2% MVIC), and V2 lateral jump (84.7% MVIC). Two of the exercises recruited GMax with values greater than 70% MVIC. In rank order from highest EMG value to lowest, these jumping tasks were: hurdle jump (76.8% MVIC) and split jump (73.1% MVIC). Only the hurdle jump produced greater than 70% MVIC for both GMed and GMax muscles.
conclusionsThe jumping task that resulted in greatest activation of the GMed was the crossover jump, while hurdle jump led to the greatest activation of the GMax. The high %MVIC for the GMed during the crossover jump may be attributed to lack of maximal effort or lack of motivation during performance of maximal contractions during the manual muscle testing. Alternatively, substantial co-contraction of core muscles during the crossover jumping task may have led to higher values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b Individual Cohort Study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.