ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Does the static Q angle reflect dynamic landing mechanics?
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the effects of static quadriceps angle (Q-angle) and body composition on dynamic landing mechanics in young female athletes.
methodsTwenty-four right-limb dominant female athletes (age: 17.04 ± 0.36 years, BMI: 20.65 ± 2.62) participated. Body composition was assessed via bioelectrical impedance. Static Q-angle, frontal plane projection angle (FPPA), and Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores during a drop vertical jump were analyzed using 120 fps cameras and Kinovea software.
resultsCorrelation analysis revealed significant negative relationships between right Q-angle and both right FPPA (rho = -0.440, p = .031) and left FPPA (rho = -0.490, p = .015). A significant positive correlation was found between body fat percentage and LESS scores (r = .521, p = .009). The regression model explained 22.6% of variance in right FPPA, showing a near-significant exploratory trend for right Q-angle (beta = -0.394, p = .060). ROC analysis suggested a potential, exploratory threshold value of 15.00 degrees for right Q-angle to detect high-risk landing mechanics (LESS > 6), yielding 78.6% sensitivity and 60.0% specificity, although the model did not reach formal statistical significance (p = .143).
conclusionsWhile the static Q-angle demonstrates a preliminary correlation with dynamic knee valgus tendencies in the dominant limb, non-significant predictive models prevent its use as a definitive standalone screening tool at this stage. Conversely, an elevated body fat percentage independently impairs overall movement quality rather than altering specific frontal plane joint angles.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.