Evidence Hub

Hamstring strength assessment methods in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis of post-activity strength decrements, asymmetry benchmarks, and measurement reliability

Sundh AE, Ripley NJ, Lamb AJ, Comfort P

PloS one, 2026

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free