ArticleJournal of athletic training2021
Clinical Implications of Landing Distance on Landing Error Scoring System Scores.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute Effects of Tissue Flossing Coupled with Functional Movements on Knee Range of Motion, Static Balance, in Single-Leg Hop Distance, and Landing Stabilization Performance in Female College Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Cognitive-Motor Dual-Task Performance of the Landing Error Scoring System.Journal of athletic training · 2025Article
- The Reliability and Validity of the Modified Butterfly Agility Test.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- The Effects of a 12-Week Training Multicomponent Exercise Program on Landing Mechanics in Recreational Athletes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effect of Footwear Versus Barefoot on Double-Leg Jump-Landing and Jump Height Measures: A Randomized Cross-Over Study.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) screens for risk of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury. The LESS requires individuals to jump forward from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of their body height. However, different landing distances have been cited in the scientific literature.
objectiveTo examine whether landing distance influences LESS outcomes.
designCross-sectional study.
settingLaboratory. PARTICIPANTS OR OTHER
participantsSeventy young active individuals (34 males, 36 females). INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed 3 × 30-cm jump-landing tasks under 2 landing conditions in randomized order: (1) 50% of body height (d50%), (2) self-selected distance (dss). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Mean LESS scores, proportions of individuals categorized at high (LESS: ≥ 5 errors) and low (LESS: < 5 errors) injury risk, and landing distances were compared between conditions using generalized estimating equations. Consistency of risk categorization was examined using odds ratios (ORs) and McNemar tests. McNemar and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the occurrence of specific LESS errors.
resultsParticipants landed closer to the box under the dss condition (difference = -23.28 [95% CI = -20.73, -25.81]%, P < .001). Group mean LESS scores (difference = -0.01 [95% CI = -0.59, 0.57] error, P = .969) and risk categorization (OR = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.47, 1.88], P = .859) were similar between conditions. However, individual-level risk categorization was inconsistent in 33% of participants, as was the occurrence of specific errors.
conclusionsUsing dss during the LESS might lead to different LESS errors and risk categorizations at an individual level than using d50%. Given that individual LESS scores are of primary interest in clinical and sport settings and the injury-risk threshold has not been validated for dss, we recommend use of the original LESS protocol. When only group mean LESS scores or proportions of at-risk individuals are of interest, using dss is feasible to facilitate the testing of large cohorts.
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.