ArticlePloS one2025
Association between 2D landing biomechanics, isokinetic muscle strength and asymmetry in females using novel, task specific metrics based on ACL injury mechanisms.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study investigated the relationship between isokinetic muscle strength metrics, landing biomechanics, and their asymmetries, in females. Twenty-three female team sport athletes completed unilateral forward drop landings, and isokinetic muscle strength assessment of the knee extensors and flexors, on both limbs. Discrete two-dimensional kinematics of the trunk, hip, knee, and ankle in the sagittal and frontal plane and peak GRF were recorded during the drop landings. Novel, task-specific isokinetic strength metrics related to the landing task, such as peak concentric and eccentric torque, angle specific torque (AST), functional range and traditional/functional ratios were quantified. Asymmetry for kinematic and muscle strength data were quantified based on the individual variability of the task and the population mean and smallest worthwhile change. Functional concentric flexor range explained 15-18% of the variance in peak frontal trunk (P = 0.003) and hip motion (P = 0.007) and 22% in peak frontal knee motion (P = 0.005), when combined with the functional flexion ratio. Peak eccentric extensor torque explained 13-14% of the variance in peak sagittal hip (P = 0.014) and knee (P = 0.009) motion. Asymmetry in concentric extensor AST explained 28% of the variance in peak knee frontal plane asymmetry (P = 0.010), however the direction of asymmetry was rarely present on the same side for kinematic and strength variables. Novel and task specific isokinetic strength metrics explained small but significant variances in sagittal and frontal plane landing kinematics and asymmetry, which have previously been related to ACL injury risk.
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.