Clinician-friendly lower extremity physical performance tests in athletes: a systematic review of measurement properties and correlation with injury. Part 2—the tests for the hip, thigh, foot and ankle including the star excursion balance test

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 649-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric J Hegedus ◽  
Suzanne M McDonough ◽  
Chris Bleakley ◽  
David Baxter ◽  
Chad E Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Balance Test ◽  
Star Excursion Balance Test

scholarly journals Clinician-Friendly Physical Performance Tests for the Hip, Ankle, and Foot

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 861-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph H. Vogler ◽  
Alexander J. Csiernik ◽  
Marissa K. Yorgey ◽  
Jerrod J. Harrison ◽  
Kenneth E. Games
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Balance Test ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Star Excursion Balance Test

Reference:  Hegedus EJ, McDonough SM, Bleakley C, Baxter D, Cook CE. Clinician-friendly lower extremity physical performance tests in athletes: a systematic review of measurement properties and correlation with injury. Part 2: the tests for the hip, thigh, foot, and ankle including the Star Excursion Balance Test. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(10):649–656. Clinical Question:  Do individual physical performance tests (PPTs) for the lower extremity have any relation to injury in athletes 12 years of age and older? Data Sources:  The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to locate articles. Three databases were searched from inception to January 13, 2014: PubMed, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. Search phrases were sport, athletics, athletes, and injuries combined with strength, power, endurance, agility, and function. Reference lists of all remaining articles and personal collections of the authors were then reviewed for any missing articles. Study Selection:  Studies were included according to the following criteria: (1) published in English, (2) presented as complete articles (ie, no abstracts or posters), and (3) involved human participants. Studies were excluded on the following criteria: (1) a combination of PPTs was examined, (2) the results were measured using equipment that was expensive or not readily available to the average clinician, (3) the PPTs examined impairment-level data, (4) the PPTs examined tasks not relevant to the lower extremity, or (5) the participants scored 4 or less on the Tegner Activity Scale. The final analysis involved 31 studies. Data Extraction:  The name of the PPT and methods were extracted. Each PPT was then critiqued using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments, a 4-point Likert scale. Data were also summarized using a score of unknown, strong, moderate, limited, or conflicting for the best evidence synthesis. Main Results:  A total of 14 PPTs were examined; however, names and methods of the PPTs were inconsistent throughout the literature. In descending order, based on frequency of appearance in the literature, the PPTs were (1) 1-legged hop for distance, (2) vertical jump, (3) Star Excursion Balance Test, (4) shuttle run, (5) 6-m timed hop, (6) triple hop, (7) 40-yd sprint, (8) triple crossover hop for distance, (9) 6-m timed crossover hop, (10) T-agility, (11) hexagon hop, (12) medial hop, (13) lateral hop, and (14) multi-stage fitness (beep test). The Star Excursion Balance Test in the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions was the only test that could help identify injury risk. The 1-legged hop for distance and hexagon hop showed a moderate ability to differentiate between normal and unstable ankles. In dancers, the medial hop in dancers differentiated between painful and normal hips with moderate evidence. Conclusions:  Very little evidence supports the use of PPTs for athletes with lower extremity injuries. A panel of experts needs to standardize the names and methods of widely accepted tests.

scholarly journals Clinician-Friendly Physical Performance Tests for the Knee

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (11) ◽  
pp. 1068-1069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerrod J. Harrison ◽  
Marissa K. Yorgey ◽  
Alexander J. Csiernik ◽  
Joseph H. Vogler ◽  
Kenneth E. Games
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Knee Injury ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Methodologic Quality ◽  
Fair Poor

Reference:  Hegedus EJ, McDonough S, Bleakley C, Cook CE, Baxter GD. Clinician-friendly lower extremity physical performance measures in athletes: a systematic review of measurement properties and correlation with injury. Part 1: the tests for knee function including the hop tests. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(10):642−648. Clinical Question:  Do individual physical performance tests (PPTs) used as measures for lower extremity function have any relationship to injuries in athletes aged 12 years or older? Data Sources:  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to locate articles. The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus, in addition to searching by hand. The search strategy combined the terms athlete, lower extremity, and synonyms of performance test with the names of performance tests. Study Selection:  Studies were included if they involved a test that met the operational definition for a PPT. The included studies assessed components of sport function (eg, speed, agility, and power), determined readiness for return to sport, or predicted injury to the lower extremity. All PPT measures could be performed on the field, courtside, or in a gym with affordable, portable, and readily available equipment. Studies were excluded if they made use of 3-dimensional motion capture, force platforms, timing gates, treadmills, stationary bikes, metabolic charts, or another nonportable, costly testing device. Athletes were categorized on the Tegner Scale at a minimum of level 5, which is the lowest level that still encompasses competitive athletes. Studies were included if 50% or more of the participants were rated above 5 on the Tegner Scale. Studies were excluded if the sole purpose was to judge movement quality or range of motion. Studies were selected if they identified the knee or a knee injury as a focal point of the paper. Data Extraction:  The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) was used to critique the methodologic quality of each paper with a 4-point Likert scale. The title and methods of each paper were extracted. Extracted data were summarized using ratings of unknown, conflicting, limited, moderate, and strong. Main Results:  An initial search revealed 3379 original articles for consideration. After initial review, 169 full-text articles were evaluated and 29 articles were included in the systematic review. Six tests were examined for the best evidence of methodologic quality: (1) 1-legged single hop for distance, (2) 1-legged triple hop for distance, (3) 6-m timed hop, (4) crossover hop for distance, (5) triple jump, and (6) 1-legged vertical jump. A summary of the methodologic properties of the 6 tests showed fair/poor reliability, fair/poor hypothesis testing, good criterion validity, and good/poor responsiveness. No tests predicted knee injury in athletes. Conclusions:  Although numerous authors have evaluated PPTs at the knee, evidence for the measurement quality of these functional tests is limited and conflicting. Ample opportunity exists for researchers to further examine PPTs for the knee. Until more knowledge is gained about these PPTs, clinicians should exercise caution when making clinical decisions based on the results of these tests.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS OF PRE-SEASON PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE TESTS IN IDENTIFYING IN-SEASON LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES IN ADOLESCENT GYMNASTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0014
Author(s):  
Danielle A Farzanegan ◽  
Emily Francione ◽  
Nicole Melfi
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Kinetic Chain ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Balance Test ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Acute Injuries ◽  
Extremity Injuries

Background: Artistic competitive gymnastics results in a wide, unique spectrum of injuries. Due to the high number of injuries and the current lack of research related to pre-competitive testing in adolescent gymnasts, it is crucial to find a method to predict the likelihood of an athlete sustaining an in-season injury. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to 1) describe the frequency and type of pre-season and in-season injuries, 2) determine if there were differences in physical performance tests between those who had a lower extremity (LE) injury in-season and those who did not, and 3) determine if there were differences in age, level, sex, BMI, sport modifications, previous injury, and current injury between those who had a LE injury and those who didn’t. Methods: Thirty-seven adolescent gymnasts (average age: 12.81 years) were included with levels ranging from 5 (novice) to 10 (elite). Participants (15 males and 22 females) were surveyed for previous and current injury. The athletes completed a performance battery before the competition season including: Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (LQYBT), Closed Kinetic Chain dorsiflexion (CKCDF), single hop (SH), triple hop (TH), and the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). Follow-up data was collected at the end of the competitive season for comparison. The data was analyzed using descriptive methods and comparative analyses including chi-square and independent t-tests with an alpha level set at .05. Results: Sixty-five percent reported an injury in the last year and seventy-eight percent reported pre-season injuries at testing day. The most common location for pre-season injury was the ankle/foot (24% and 31% respectively). There were no differences between injured and non-injured athletes when comparing asymmetries in CKCDF, LQYBT posteromedial or posterolateral reach, hop testing, or FMS. The LQYBT-anterior scores were significantly different at p=.049 between the injured versus uninjured groups, with 91% of the in-season injury group having a difference <4cm. Similarly, the LQYBT-composite score using a cut-off of 95% was significant at p=.043 with those >95% category being more likely to get injured. There were no significant differences in demographic information comparing injury occurrence. Conclusion: The tested physical performance battery may be useful in tracking gymnasts over time, but may not be beneficial in forecasting injuries in a sport with high percentages of acute injuries. The collected injury volume may not be reflective of a standard season as COVID-19 decreased the number of competitions. Additional research to identify athletes at risk for injury requires further investigation.

scholarly journals Practicability of lower extremity functional performance tests and their measurement properties in elite athletes: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e042975
Author(s):  
Rosalyn Cooke ◽  
Alison Rushton ◽  
James Martin ◽  
Lee Herrington ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Performance Tests ◽  
Measurement Property ◽  
Individual Measurement

IntroductionLower extremity injury (LEI) is highly prevalent and its occurrence increases the risk of future injury in athletic populations. Identifying athletes at risk of injury is the key to target injury-prevention programmes. Functional performance tests (FPT) assess an athlete’s ability to produce and accept forces during movement tasks reflective of those experienced in sport, and are used to identify deficits in physical qualities or neuromuscular control. This review aims to identify FPT which have potential to predict LEI and assess their measurement properties associated with reliability, validity, responsiveness and practicability (interpretability and feasibility).Methods/analysisThis protocol will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Methodology. The search strategy has two stages: stage 1 will identify lower limb FPT used in athletic populations; and stage 2 will assess the measurement properties of the identified FPT. A sensitive search strategy will use MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and SPORTdiscus databases; from inception to June 2020. Hand searching reference lists, key journals and grey literature will be completed. One reviewer will complete search 1 and data extraction. Two reviewers will complete the search, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment for search 2. Evidence will be pooled or summarised by individual measurement property by each individual study and grouped by FPT. Meta-analysis using a random effects model with subgroup analysis will be performed where possible. Pooled or summarised results for each FPT in relation to each measurement property will be rated against the criteria for good measurement properties. Two reviewers will assess the overall body of evidence per measurement property per FPT using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. This review will enable clinicians to make an informed choice when selecting FPT.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this review and the results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and submitted for conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188932.

scholarly journals Systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis in the foot and ankle

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 1788-1799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Belen Ortega-Avila ◽  
Laura Ramos-Petersen ◽  
Pablo Cervera-Garvi ◽  
Christopher J Nester ◽  
José Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported

Objective: To identify self-reported outcome measures specific to the foot and ankle in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and to investigate the methodological quality and psychometric properties of these measures. Method: A systematic review focusing on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Setting: The search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PEDro and Google Scholar databases, based on the following inclusion criteria: population (with rheumatoid arthritis) > 18 years; psychometric or clinimetric validation studies of patient-reported outcomes specific to the foot and ankle, in different languages, with no time limit. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. Terwee’s criteria and the COSMIN checklist were employed to ensure adequate methodological quality. Results: Of the initial 431 studies considered, 14 met the inclusion criteria, representing 7,793 patients (56.8 years). These instruments were grouped into three dimensions (pain, perceived health status and quality of life and disability). The time to complete any of the PROMs varies around 15 minutes. PROMs criterias with the worst scores by COSMIN, 92.85% and 85.71% were criterion validity, measurement error, internal consistency and responsiveness. 28.57% of PROMs were compared with the measurement properties. Conclusion: the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score achieved the highest number of positive criteria (according to Terwee and COSMIN), and is currently the most appropriate for patients with Rheumatoid arthritis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document