ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Biomechanical differences between females and males with patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. 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.
- Biomechanical differences between females and males with patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is more prevalent in females and altered lower limb biomechanics have been implicated in its development and persistence. However, it remains unclear whether movement patterns differ between men and women with PFP during functional activities. Many biomechanical studies rely on mixed-sex cohorts, potentially obscuring sex-specific movement patterns. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review biomechanical differences between females and males with PFP during functional tasks. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 10 September 2025. Studies comparing in vivo biomechanical characteristics of females and males with PFP during functional tasks were included, whereas studies using mixed-sex cohorts without sex-stratified analysis or focusing exclusively on a single sex were excluded. Extracted data comprised participant demographics, methodological characteristics and kinetic and kinematic outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using standardized mean differences. Results: Five cross-sectional studies including 170 individuals with PFP (84 females and 86 males) were analysed. Tasks evaluated included single-leg squat, step-down, mini-squat and single-leg jumping activities. Meta-analysis of single-leg squat data showed greater peak hip adduction in females compared with males (mean difference 4.93°, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.60-7.25; Conclusions: Only a limited number of studies evaluated sex-specific biomechanics in individuals with PFP. Despite the small number of studies, consistent differences between females and males were observed, suggesting that sex influences movement strategies and should be considered in biomechanical assessment and rehabilitation. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.