ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2025
Single Leg Drop and Hop: Insight Into Multisegment Foot Kinematics, Kinetics and the Role of Visual Focus in Healthy Young Adult Males.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Single Leg Drop and Hop: Insight Into Multisegment Foot Kinematics, Kinetics and the Role of Visual Focus in Healthy Young Adult Males.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding foot joint loading during different dynamic activities is essential information for guiding exercise progression in rehabilitation. While walking and running biomechanics are well studied, joint-specific kinetic data during a single leg drop and hop task, often used in rehabilitation, are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate (1) the kinetic behavior of the ankle, Chopart, Lisfranc, and MTP-1 joints during a drop-hop task under different visual constraints and (2) to contextualize these findings by comparing them with heel-strike running, to assess the relative loading demands of the drop-hop task.
methodsSeventeen recreationally active male adults performed a single-leg drop and hop under two visual focus conditions: central (focusing on the landing spot) and peripheral (focusing straight ahead). Kinematics, moments, and power were analyzed using a four-segment foot model with statistical parametric mapping. Additionally, peak plantarflexion moments and power outputs were compared with existing data from heel-strike running data from a mixed-sex sample (4 males, 3 females) collected in a separate study using the same setup.
resultsFindings revealed no differences between central and peripheral focus conditions. Heel-strike running shows similar joint loading, but higher power generation (p < 0.001) at the ankle and Chopart joint, higher absorption (p < 0.001) at the Chopart and MTP-1 (p < 0.05) joint and lower power absorption (p < 0.001) at the ankle and Lisfranc joint.
conclusionVisual input does not influence foot biomechanics during a single-leg drop and hop. This task produces similar joint loading patterns similar to heel-strike running but with reduced power generation at the ankle and midfoot. Contrary to global belief, the single leg drop-hop task is not excessively more demanding in terms of foot joint loading, supporting the earlier use of drop-hop exercises in rehabilitation programs. They offer a controlled way to reintroduce loading while avoiding the full propulsion demands of running, independent of visual focus.
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.