Background: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the reliability of isokinetic measurements of hip strength in flexion and extension in healthy subjects and athletes. Methods: The databases used were Web of Science, SCOPUS, Medline and PubMed. R was used for all statistical analyses. Results: Hip flexion shows moderate reliability in the supine position (ICC = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.46–0.99) and good reliability in the standing position (ICC = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.54–1.04). Hip extension shows excellent reliability in the supine position (ICC = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85–0.96) and moderate reliability in the standing position (ICC = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.48–0.96). Flexion of 120°/s and 180°/s showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85–1.00), (ICC = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92–1.01). The 60°/s and 120°/s extension showed good reliability (ICC = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82–0.98), (ICC = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75–0.99). The 180°/s extension presented excellent reliability (ICC = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.82–1.03). Conclusions: The standing position shows good reliability for hip flexion and the supine position shows excellent reliability for hip extension, both movements have excellent reliability at velocities between 120°/s to 180°/s.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of sit-to-stand (STS) training programs with 5 vs. 10 repetitions on muscle architecture and muscle function in sedentary adults. Sixty participants were randomly assigned into three groups: five-repetition STS (5STS), 10-repetition STS (10STS), or a control group (CG). Participants performed three sets of five or 10 repetitions of the STS exercise three times per week for 8 weeks. Before and after 8 weeks, all groups performed ultrasound measures to evaluate muscle thickness (MT), pennation angle (PA), and fascicle length (FL), and the five-repetition STS test to estimate the relative STS power and muscle quality index (MQI). After 8 weeks, both experimental groups improved MQI (40–45%), relative STS power (29–38%), and MT (8–9%) (all p < 0.001; no differences between the 5STS vs. 10STS groups). These improvements in both groups resulted in differences regarding the CG, which did not present any change. In addition, only the 5STS group improved PA (15%; p = 0.008) without differences to the 10STS and CG.This suggests that STS training is time-effective and low-cost for improving muscle function and generating adaptations in muscle architecture.

Background: Soccer is the most widely practiced sport in the world, demanding high-speed activities such as jumps, sprints and changes of direction. Therefore, having optimal levels of muscle strength improves performance and reduces the injury rate. Objectives: The objectives of our study were (i) to determine the dynamometric profile of hip muscle strength in young soccer players by position, evaluated at different isokinetic speeds, (ii) to describe the conventional and functional unilateral muscle strength ratios, (iii) to analyze the bilateral balance. Methods: Thirty-seven male soccer players (age 17.02 ± 0.92 years) participated in the study. Strength assessment was performed with a functional electromechanical dynamometer, and concentric and eccentric strength of abductors, adductors, extensors and hip flexors were measured bilaterally at 0.5 m/s and 1 m/s. Results: For eccentric right hip abduction at 0.5 m/s, defenders are significantly stronger than midfielders (p = 0.013) and stronger than forwards (p = 0.140). For eccentric right hip adduction at 0.5 m/s, defenders are significantly stronger than midfielders (p = 0.005) and stronger than forwards (p = 0.253), as for eccentric right hip adduction at 1 m/s, defenders are significantly stronger than midfielders (p = 0.014) and stronger than forwards (p = 0.084). There is a significant effect for the conventional strength ratio of left abduction/adduction at 1 m/s. The conventional strength ratio of forwards is significantly higher than that of defenders (p = 0.045) and higher than that of midfielders (p = 0.152). Conclusions: Concentric and eccentric hip strength values differ according to playing position.

The aims of this study were to: (I) examine the reliability of the abduction and adduction isokinetic strength measurements in healthy subjects and athletes; (II) determine which position is the most valid and reliable for strength measurement; and (III) determine the most reliable velocity to assess hip abductor and adductor strength. The databases used were Web of Science, SCOPUS, MedLine and PubMed. The metafor package of R software was used to conduct meta-analysis. A total of 767 studies were identified through a search of electronic databases, of which 10 were included in this meta-analysis. The main finding of the study revealed; (I) the reliability of isokinetic force measurement is good in abduction (ICC = 0.83) and adduction (ICC = 0.81); (II) standing position presents good reliability in abduction (ICC = 0.83) and adduction (ICC = 0.79); (III) the lateral position presents good reliability in abduction (ICC = 0.83) and adduction (ICC = 0.82); (IV) the velocity of 60°/s (ICC = 0.84), 90°/s (ICC = 0.84) and 120°/s (ICC = 0.86) show good reliability for abduction, and; (V) the velocity of 30°/s (ICC = 0.76), 60°/s (ICC = 0.83), and 120°/s (ICC = 0.89) show good reliability for adduction. Many factors influence the reliability of isokinetic assessments of the hip abductors and adductors, the best known of which are body position, isokinetic velocity, and type of muscle contraction. And although most of the researchers opt for the evaluation in lateral position, and at low velocities, our results conclude that the standing position, at a velocity of 120°/s is a better alternative to evaluate these movements (ABD-ADD), and not only because of its good reliability, but also because of the similarity of the evaluation with the gestures developed within the sport.