Comparing apples and pears? Evaluating the interchangeability of three different positions for hip abduction and adduction strength testing in academy footballers.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
James O'Brien, Markus Huthöfer, Emanuel Santner, Tatjana Becker, Thomas Stöggl
{"title":"Comparing apples and pears? Evaluating the interchangeability of three different positions for hip abduction and adduction strength testing in academy footballers.","authors":"James O'Brien, Markus Huthöfer, Emanuel Santner, Tatjana Becker, Thomas Stöggl","doi":"10.4085/1062-6050-0394.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives: To compare strength parameters and pain ratings across three different positions forisometric hip abduction and adduction strength testing. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Two elite European football academies. Participants: Male football players (n=188, mean age 15.5 ± 1.6) from the U14-U19 teams. Methods: Isometric hip abduction and adduction were tested in 3 different positions on the ForceFrame: bent-leg with knees on pads, straight-leg with ankles on pads, and straight-leg with knees on pads. The order was randomised. The outcome measures were maximum isometric hip adduction and abduction strength (Fmax), limb symmetry index (LSI), hip adduction-to-abduction strength ratio and hip/groin pain numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: Correlation was moderate to high for Fmax in hip adduction (r = 0.64 to 0.73) and abduction (r = 0.78 to 0.84), but low for LSI and strength ratios (r = 0.06 to 0.48). Pain was reported by 19% and 13% of players during adduction and abduction respectively, with the majority (11% and 10%) only reporting pain in one of the three positions. Conclusions: The findings suggest that maximal strength values from the three test positions can be compared (i.e. using a conversion factor). The interchangeability of test positions is otherwise limited, due to inconsistent pain ratings and low correlation for LSI and strength ratios.</p>","PeriodicalId":54875,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Athletic Training","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Athletic Training","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0394.24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare strength parameters and pain ratings across three different positions forisometric hip abduction and adduction strength testing. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Two elite European football academies. Participants: Male football players (n=188, mean age 15.5 ± 1.6) from the U14-U19 teams. Methods: Isometric hip abduction and adduction were tested in 3 different positions on the ForceFrame: bent-leg with knees on pads, straight-leg with ankles on pads, and straight-leg with knees on pads. The order was randomised. The outcome measures were maximum isometric hip adduction and abduction strength (Fmax), limb symmetry index (LSI), hip adduction-to-abduction strength ratio and hip/groin pain numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: Correlation was moderate to high for Fmax in hip adduction (r = 0.64 to 0.73) and abduction (r = 0.78 to 0.84), but low for LSI and strength ratios (r = 0.06 to 0.48). Pain was reported by 19% and 13% of players during adduction and abduction respectively, with the majority (11% and 10%) only reporting pain in one of the three positions. Conclusions: The findings suggest that maximal strength values from the three test positions can be compared (i.e. using a conversion factor). The interchangeability of test positions is otherwise limited, due to inconsistent pain ratings and low correlation for LSI and strength ratios.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Athletic Training
Journal of Athletic Training 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
106
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Athletic Training is to enhance communication among professionals interested in the quality of health care for the physically active through education and research in prevention, evaluation, management and rehabilitation of injuries. The Journal of Athletic Training offers research you can use in daily practice. It keeps you abreast of scientific advancements that ultimately define professional standards of care - something you can''t be without if you''re responsible for the well-being of patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信