Table 4. Summary of findings from variables excluded from meta-analyses on associations between hop test measures and reinjury.

Study	Measure of hop test
	LSI	Absolute value†	Height-normalized value†
Single-leg hop for distance
Fältström et al., 2023	--	IL: 127 ± 23 vs. 120 ± 19; P = 0.102‡ UL: 128 ± 21 vs. 122 ± 18; P = 0.134‡	UL: 0.77 ± 0.13 vs. 0.73 ± 0.11; P = 0.093‡
Girdwood et al., 2024	☒	☒	IL: HR = 1.01 (0.99-1.02)§, ¶
Ithurburn et al., 2019	96.0 ± 7.0 vs. 94.1 ± 6.4; P > 0.05‡	☒	IL: P = 0.982†† UL: P = 0.133††
King et al., 2021	--	IL: 152.3 ± 27.0 vs. 154.9 ± 19.9; P = 0.562‡	☒
Marigi et al., 202	--	☒	☒
Marty-Diloy et al., 2025	☒	UL: 113.15 ± 63.2 vs. 121.2 ± 56.2; P = 0.483‡ IL: 108.2 ± 62.03 vs. 106.6 ± 54.8; P = 0.89‡	☒
Paterno et al., 2025	ipsilateral graft rupture: 98.9 ± 6.8; contralateral ACL injury: 95.9 ± 6.4; non-reinjury: 98.4 ± 4.9; P = 0.39‡	☒	☒
Triple hop for distance
Bodkin et al., 2022	--	☒	IL: OR = 1.81 (0.81, 4.05)§; P = 0.150
Ithurburn et al., 2019	95.2 ± 6.4 vs. 95.4 ± 6.3; P > 0.05‡	☒	IL: P = 0.034†† UL: P = 0.027††
Marigi et al., 2023	--	☒	IL: 256 ± 63 vs. 254 ± 190; P = 0.19‡ UL: 93 ± 18 vs. 94 ± 67; P = 0.33‡
Marty-Diloy et al., 2025	☒	UL: 487.86 ± 111.32 vs. 434.81 ± 113.98; P = 0.19‡ IL: 469.94 ± 98.737 vs. 414.99 ± 114.09; P = 0.18‡	☒
Nyland et al., 2025	☒	UL: 324.7 ± 191.9 vs. 325.7 ± 166.1; P = 0.767‡ IL: 324.9 ± 191.3 vs. 317.8 ± 163.3; P = 0.832‡	☒
Paterno et al., 2025	ipsilateral graft rupture: 97.5 ± 8.0; contralateral ACL injury: 97.9 ± 5.4; non-reinjury: 99.0 ± 4.5; P = 0.73‡	☒	☒
Triple crossover hop for distance
Ithurburn et al., 2019	95.5 ± 5.3 vs. 95.3 ± 7.6; P > 0.05‡	☒	IL: P = 0.569†† UL: P = 0.551††
Paterno et al., 2025	ipsilateral graft rupture: 96.4 ± 2.1; contralateral ACL injury: 98.7 ± 6.7; non-reinjury: 98.5 ± 5.0; P = 0.54‡	☒	☒
Webster et al., 2019a	ipsilateral graft rupture vs. non-reinjury: OR = 1.1 (.05-2.5) §; P > 0.05¶ contralateral ACL injury vs. non-reinjury: OR = 1.0 (0.4-2.5)§; P > 0.05¶	☒	☒
6-meter timed hop
Bodkin et al., 2022	--	IL: OR = 0.65 (0.31, 1.36)§; P = 0.252	☒
Paterno et al., 2025	ipsilateral graft rupture: 101.0 ± 5.3; contralateral ACL injury: 100.3 ± 8.4; non-reinjury: 96.7 ± 7.1; P = 0.18‡	☒	☒
Side hop
Fältström et al., 2023	--	IL: 41 ± 17 vs. 33 ± 13; P = 0.007‡ UL: 42 ± 15 vs. 36 ± 13; P = 0.049‡	IL: 0.25 ± 0.10 vs. 0.20 ± 0.08; P = 0.006‡ UL: 0.25 ± 0.09 vs. 0.21 ± 0.08; P = 0.042‡
Girdwood et al., 2024	☒	IL: HR = 1.00 (0.96-1.04) §, ¶ UL: HR = 1.02 (0.99-1.05)§, ¶	☒
Marty-Diloy et al., 2025	☒	UL: 50.04 ± 15.3 vs. 48.07 ± 13.8; P = 0.491‡ IL: 43.9 ± 16.9 vs. 41.2 ± 17.05; P = 0.44‡	☒
5-jump
Fältström et al., 2023	--	IL: 922 ± 116 vs. 865 ± 88; P = 0.007‡	IL: 5.52 ± 0.67 vs. 5.15 ± 0.52; P = 0.003‡
Single-leg countermovement jump
King et al., 2021	85.8 ± 13.2 vs. 84.4 ± 14.6; P = 0.627‡	IL: 12.1 ± 2.3 vs. 11.9 ± 2.4; P = 0.561‡	☒
Single-leg drop vertical jump
King et al., 2021	78.1 ± 16.7 vs. 74.1 ± 14.8; P = 0.186‡	IL: 12.1 ± 3.2 vs. 12.4 ± 2.7; P = 0.564‡	☒
Marty-Diloy et al., 2025	☒	UL: 0.3 ± 0.5 vs. 0.25 ± 0.4; P = 0.559‡ IL: 0.4 ± 0.5 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5; P = 0.685‡	☒
Single-leg vertical jump
Marigi et al., 2023	--	☒	IL: 17 ± 6 vs. 17 ± 12; P = 0.17‡ UL: 19 ± 6 vs. 20 ± 13; P = 0.62‡
20-meter timed hop
Nyland et al., 2025	99.282 ± 3.9787 vs. 97.556 ± 6.1697; P = 0.42‡	IL: 4.8412 ± 0.8934 vs. 5.3701 ± 1.3347; P = 0.21‡ UL: 4.7765 ± 0.7571 vs. 5.2257 ± 1.1548; P = 0.27‡	☒
20-meter timed crossover hop
Nyland et al., 2025	100.36 ± 5.1664 vs. 99.081 ± 6.124; P = 0.45‡	IL: 5.5824 ± 1.1064 vs. 6.3701 ± 1.7427; P = 0.19‡ UL: 5.6529 ± 1.262 vs. 6.3701 ± 1.7851; P = 0.28‡	☒
Hop test battery
Figueroa et al., 2025	OR = 2.2 (0.6-5.11)§	☒	☒
Paterno et al., 2022	OR = 0.61 (0.3-1.4)§; P = 0.24d	☒	☒
Piussi et al., 2023	HR = 0.82 (0.47-1.44)§, P = 0.50d	☒	☒
Simonsson et al., 2024	OR = 0.65 (0.31, 1.33)§, P = 0.24d	☒	☒
van Melick et al., 2022	ARR (absolute risk reduction) = 11%, P = 0.047d	☒	☒

† hopping time for 6-meter timed hop, hopping numbers for side hop, hopping length for vertical jump, hopping distance for other hop tests;‡ comparison between reinjury (the former) and non-reinjury (the latter) groups;§ median (95% confidence interval);¶ result was calculated based on achieving LSI ≥ 90% vs. <90%;†† data were presented as box plots;Abbreviations: --: data were included in meta-analysis; ☒: not reported; LSI: limb symmetry index; OR: odds ratio; HR: hazard ratio; IL: involved limb; UL: uninvolved limb.