ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2022
Single Leg Bridge Test is Not a Valid Clinical Tool to Assess Maximum Hamstring Strength.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the optimal height for hamstring activity in the maximum-speed single-leg bridge test.International journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Maximum-Speed Single-Leg Bridge Test for Concentric Functional Assessment and Exercise in an Athlete with Recurrent Hamstring Strain Injuries: A Case Report.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025Article
- The Single Leg Bridge Test Does Not Measure Isolated Hamstring Endurance in Healthy Men.International journal of sports physical therapy · 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
Background: The single leg bridge test (SLBT) has been introduced in the sports context as a way of estimating hamstring muscle capacity for prevention and rehabilitation of hamstring strain injuries. Purpose: The primary aim was to examine the association between SLBT scores with concentric and eccentric knee flexor peak torques. Secondarily, this study aimed examine the association of between-limb asymmetries provided by SLBT and isokinetic tests. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: One hundred male soccer players (20±3 years) performed the SLBT and the knee flexion-extension isokinetic dynamometry evaluation (60°/s) billaterally during a single visit. SLBT score (i.e., number of repetitions until failure) and concentric and eccentric knee flexor peak torques (normalized per body mass) were considered for analysis. For both SLBT and isokinetic dynamometry, between-limb asymmetry was calculated as the percentage difference between the left limb and the right limb. Associations were assessed through Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: The mean SLBT score was 33.6±9.6 repetitions, concentric peak torque was 2.00±0.22 Nm/kg, and eccentric peak torque was 2.79±0.44 Nm/kg. Between-limb asymmetry was 0.4±9.6%, 1.08±8.5%, and 1.64±14.61% in SLBT, concentric, and eccentric tests, respectively. There was a poor association of SLBT score with concentric (p<0.001, r=0.275) and eccentric (p=0.002, r=0.215) peak torques. The SLBT between-limb asymmetry was poorly associated with asymmetry found in concentric peak torque asymmetry (p=0.033, r=0.213) and was not associated with eccentric peak torque asymmetry (p=0.539, r=0.062). Conclusion: The SLBT should not be used as a clinical tool to assess the maximum strength of hamstring muscles. Level of Evidence: Level 3.
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.