You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Return to play and physical performance tests: evidence-based, rough guess or charade?
  1. Eric J Hegedus1,
  2. Chad E Cook2
  1. 1Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Division of Physical Therapy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr of Eric J Hegedus, Department Physical Therapy, High Point University, 833 Montlieu Ave, High Point, NC 27262, USA; ehegedus{at}highpoint.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094796

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    It was with great interest that we read the recent BMJ editorial by professors Lohmander and Roos1 that challenged the orthopaedic and sports world to have greater evidence to support interventions. We would place ourselves firmly on their bandwagon as we examine the evidence supporting physical performance tests (PPTs) in athletes.

    A PPT is aptly named as each requires an athlete to perform a physical task that is believed to be a component of sports activity. PPTs are simple, portable, low-tech assessments and as such, are quite attractive. Representative of PPTs is the single leg hop test2 and its variations (triple, crossover, and timed 6 m hop), which are ubiquitous in sports rehabilitation environments. PPTs are routinely used to predict/determine if:

    1. An athlete will be injured at some future time based on substandard performance of the test (injury prediction);

    2. The athlete will perform at a higher level than his or her peers for the foreseeable future …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EJH originated the idea and wrote the first draft and final draft. CC revised the initial draft and created the second draft.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.