Table 3. Summary of findings from variables excluded from meta-analyses on associations between hop test measures and return to sports.

Study	LSI	Absolute value†	Measure of hop test Height-normalized value†	Body-mass-normalized value†	Side-to-side difference
Single-leg hop for distance
Bodkin et al., 2022	--	☒	IL: OR = 8.95 (0.80-100.5)‡; P = 0.076	☒	☒
Ithurburn et al., 2019	94.1 ± 6.4 vs. 93.8 ± 6.0; P > 0.05§	☒	IL: P = 0.043¶ UL: P = 0.133¶	☒	☒
Jang et al., 2014	☒	IL: 157.7 ± 23.6 vs. 153.9 ± 32.4; P = 0.877§ UL: 173.7 ± 19.6 vs. 173.3 ± 24.3; P = 0.959§	☒	☒	☒
Kim et al., 2022	☒	☒	☒	☒	6.8 ± 1.4 vs. 15.3 ± 6.1;P = 0.04§
Ohji et al., 2021b	--	☒	IL: 81.9 ± 13.2 vs. 73.5 ± 18.1; P = 0.025§	☒	☒
Senorski et al., 2017	☒	☒	☒	IL: 2.04 ± 0.35 vs. 1.95 ± 0.3; P > 0.05§ UL: 2.1 ± 0.36 vs. 2.05 ± 0.42; P > 0.05§	☒
Welling et al., 2020	--	IL: 163.7 ± 27.4 vs. 142.4 ± 35.6; P = 0.013§ UL: 168.8 ± 25.6 vs. 149.4 ± 29.5; P = 0.011§	☒	☒	☒
Triple hop for distance
Bodkin et al., 2022	--	☒	IL: OR = 1.67 (0.76-3.64)‡; P = 0.200	☒	☒
Ithurburn et al., 2019	95.4 ± 6.3 vs. 95.1 ± 7.3; P > 0.05§	☒	IL: P = 0.007¶ UL: P = 0.004¶	☒	☒
Welling et al., 2020	--	IL: 524.8 ± 84.4 vs. 469.3 ± 91.5; P = 0.024§ UL: 538.9 ± 81.2 vs. 487.4 ± 75.2; P = 0.023§	☒	☒	☒
Triple crossover hop for distance
Ithurburn et al., 2019	95.3 ± 7.6 vs. 93.5 ± 13.2; P > 0.05§	☒	IL: P = 0.033¶ UL: P = 0.037¶	☒	☒
6-meter timed hop
Bodkin et al., 2022	--	IL: OR = 0.80 (0.52-1.24)‡; P = 0.317	☒	☒	☒
Side hop
Legnani et al., 2024	P > 0.05¶	☒	☒	☒	☒
Senorski et al., 2017	☒	☒	☒	IL: 0.76 ± 0.16 vs. 0.6 ± 0.22; P > 0.05§ UL: 0.8 ± 0.15 vs. 0.65 ± 0.16; P > 0.05§	☒
Welling et al., 2020	98.0 ± 14.1 vs. 91.3 ± 17.1; P = 0.116§	IL: 53.3 ± 13.1 vs. 43.8 ± 17.1; P = 0.021§ UL: 54.4 ± 11.6 vs. 46.9 ± 14.0; P = 0.032§	☒	☒	☒
Balance front hop
Niederer et al., 2024	OR = 0.8 (0.3-2.1)‡; P = 0.4††	☒	☒	☒	☒
Balance side hop
Niederer et al., 2024	OR = 0.8 (0.3-2.3)‡; P = 0.8††	☒	☒	☒	☒
Niederer et al., 2025	☒	IL: OR = 1 (0.998, 1.002)‡, P = 0.999	☒	☒	☒
Bipedal drop vertical jump
Niederer et al., 2024	OR = 1.4 (0.5-3.9)‡; P = 0.4††	☒	☒	☒	☒
Novaretti et al., 2018	71.9 ± 17.1 vs. 72.1 ± 17.7; P = 0.96§	☒	☒	☒	☒
Bipodal countermovement jump
Legnani et al., 2024	P > 0.05¶	☒	☒	☒	☒
Single-leg drop vertical jump
Ohji et al., 2024	93.7 ± 16.4 vs. 79.8 ± 18.1; P = 0.002§	☒	☒	☒	☒
Single-leg vertical jump
Ohji et al., 2024	92.5 ± 9.8 vs. 87.2 ± 9.3; P = 0.043§	☒	☒	☒	☒
Senorski et al., 2017	☒	☒	☒	IL:0.25 ± 0.06 vs. 0.24 ± 0.07; P > 0.05§ UL: 0.28 ± 0.05 vs. 0.27 ± 0.05; P > 0.05§	☒
Square hop
Müller et al., 2015	87.5 ± 20.4 vs. 83.8 ± 44.6; P > 0.05§	☒	☒	☒	☒
Hop test battery
Faleide et al., 2021	OR = 1.02 (0.97-1.07)‡; P = 0.425††	☒	☒	☒	☒
Nawasreh et al., 2018	P < 0.001; R2 = 0.435††	☒	☒	☒	☒
Webster et al., 2019b	OR = 1.03 (1-1.06)‡; P = 0.048††	☒	☒	☒	☒

† hopping time for 6-meter timed hop, hopping numbers for side hop, hopping length for vertical jump, hopping distance for other hop tests;‡ median (95% confidence interval);§ comparison between return-to-sports (the former) and non-return-to-sports (the latter) groups;¶ data were presented as box plots;†† result was calculated based on achieving LSI ≥ 90% vs. <90%);Abbreviations: --: data were included in meta-analysis; ☒: not reported; LSI: limb symmetry index; OR: odds ratio; IL: involved limb; UL: uninvolved limb.KOOS: Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee; ACL-RSI: Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury questionnaire; VAS: Visual analog scale; NRS: Numerical rating scale; KOS-ADLS: Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale; TSK: Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia; GRS: Global Rating Score; K-SES: knee self-efficacy scale; PAS: physical activity scale; SANE: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation; ROM: range of motion; PoSAP: Postoperative Subjective Athletic Perfor-mance; NR: not reported; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging.