Table 6 Study results—asymmetries examined during a loading protocol/task

Bishop et al. [30]

7.62

N/A

9.82

N/A

9.95

N/A

13.25

N/A

14.67

N/A

< 0.05

0.83

t1 vs. t4

< 0.05

1.16

t1 vs. t5

Hanley and Tucker [31]

0.42

0.39

0.51

0.46

0.53

0.42

0.53

0.45

0.54

0.39

> 0.05 for all variables

0.31*

0.58

0.52

0.56

0.36

0.55

0.49

0.56

0.53

0.59

0.46

0.02*

0.42

0.35

0.33

0.20

0.36

0.22

0.45

0.34

0.46

0.34

0.11*

1.16

0.92

1.14

0.75

1.25

1.03

1.40

1.20

1.29

1.10

0.14*

1.97

1.47

2.87

1.52

2.74

2.10

2.65

2.23

2.77

2.37

0.54*

1.00

0.81

0.95

0.70

1.01

0.81

1.15

0.87

1.12

0.75

0.15*

0.86

0.58

0.82

0.59

0.92

0.61

0.73

0.46

0.81

0.65

0.09*

Matthes and Wolf [33]

Leg stretcher force

Male

8.2

5.9

9.1

7.0

> 0.05

0.15*

60–90 s vs. 360–390 s (Female) / 60–90 s vs. 300–330 s (Male)

Female

24.9

19.8

28.3

19.5

0.023

0.17*

Girard et al. [20]

Performance and running kinetics, running kinematics, spring-mass characteristics

> 0.05 for all variables

N/A

Could not be calculated

Hodges et al. [32]

absolute average vGRF asymmetry

0.6

N/A

Could not be calculated

0.229

Jordan et al. [21]

Functional AI values

0.76

N/A

Could not be calculated

Tucker and Hanley [34]

Step length, contact time, step frequency, vGRF data

> 0.05 for all variables

N/A

Could not be calculated