SynthesisPloS one2026
Hamstring strength assessment methods in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis of post-activity strength decrements, asymmetry benchmarks, and measurement reliability.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hamstring strain injuries (HSI) represent one of the most prevalent and recurrent injuries in sport, making reliable strength assessment essential for neuromuscular monitoring in athletic populations. Despite the breadth of available testing modalities, no comprehensive synthesis of assessment methods, their reliability, post-activity strength responses, or normative asymmetry values has been undertaken. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the reliability of hamstring strength assessment methods, quantify the time-course of strength decrements following competition, establish normative inter-limb asymmetry benchmarks, and identify gaps to guide future assessment practices. PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to November 1, 2025 following PRISMA guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. A total of 161 studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 106 in quantitative analysis. Isokinetic dynamometry was the most frequently used modality, followed by force platform assessments and Nordic hamstring-based devices, with a clear upward trend in field-based testing observed after 2010. Multiple modalities demonstrate good reliability, sensitivity to post-activity fatigue, and comparable patterns to detect inter-limb asymmetries, supporting their use across varied applied settings. Hamstring strength deficits persisted for 24-72 hours following on-field activity, identifying a critical vulnerability window during congested schedules. Minor inter-limb asymmetries of approximately 3-4% appear normative and should not be considered clinically meaningful in isolation. Practitioners should establish individualized baselines and integrate routine monitoring with evidence-based recovery strategies to mitigate HSI risk throughout competitive seasons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.