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

Abstract

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.