Skip to main content
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy logoLink to International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
. 2022 Jun 1;17(4):622–627. doi: 10.26603/001c.35593

Research Dominance Definitions May Not Identify Higher Risk Limb for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in NCAA D3 Student-Athletes

Paul A Cacolice 1,, Brianna E Starkey 2, Christopher R Carcia 3, Paul E Higgins 1
PMCID: PMC9159722  PMID: 35693852

Abstract

Background/Purpose

Recent work has identified non-significant correlations of established limb dominance to the lower extremity (LE) at greater risk for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury in an active, non-athletic sample. The most common LE dominance definition is preferred leg to kick a ball. Athletes develop a unilaterality pattern different from their active, non-athlete peers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between the LE used to kick a ball with and the limb identified at greater risk of ACL injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division III athletes.

Design

An Observational Descriptive study design

Methods

Forty-six student-athletes that were active on their NCAA Division III football, field hockey, volleyball, and soccer team rosters were recruited. Upon completing consent, participants performed two tasks (kicking a ball; unilateral land) in a counterbalanced order. Data were entered into and analyzed with a commercial statistical software package where a phi coefficient and Chi-squared analysis were performed.

Results

Of the 46 student athletes who participated (Female=32, Male=14, 19.48±1.26years, 171.75±10.47cm, 77.26±18.74kg), 25 participants kicked and landed with the same limb. Twenty participants chose kicking and landing with different limbs. The Phi Coefficient (Φ= 0.001; P= 0.97) indicated little to no relationship between the LE a participant kicked and landed with. Likewise, the Chi-square statistic revealed no statistical differences between observed and expected frequencies (χ2= 0.001; p= 0.97).

Discussion/Conclusion

NCAA Division III athletes display a statistical absence of preferred limb predictability utilizing the most common dominance definition (kicking a ball) as it relates to identifying LE at risk of ACL injury. The results suggest that the prevalent LE dominance definition is problematic when exploring ACL injury risk in this population.

Keywords: Athlete, Dominant limb, Intercollegiate, kicking, landing, lower extremity

INTRODUCTION

Decades of focused investigations have been conducted to better understand anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk factors.1 Despite this, ACL injuries remain common,2–6 costly,7 and debilitating.8 It has been estimated that 80,000 to 250,000 ACL injuries occur in the US each year,3,9,10 with an appropriated total annual cost of between $8 and $18 billion.11 ACL injury increases the likelihood of re-injury,12,13 and the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis.12 Furthermore, individuals often face psycho-sociological challenges during their time away from regular activity.14,15 A preferred strategy then, would be to prevent rather than treat ACL injuries.

Injury prevention requires a precise understanding of the causal risk factor(s).16 It has been established that ACL injuries occur more frequently with non-contact mechanisms,2,4 and with single LE deceleration activities such as changing direction or landing from a jump.17 These suggest that lower extremity (LE) biomechanics are affected at ground contact to increase injury risk. As such, unilateral landing tasks are commonly utilized to study non-contact ACL risk factors.18,19

Investigation of unilateral landing behaviors commonly collects data from the participant’s dominant LE. Limb dominance is most frequently defined as the preferred LE to kick a ball.20–23 The majority of ACL injuries however occur to the plant or landing LE.21,24 It is unknown if the preferred leg to kick a ball is the lower extremity most commonly injured. Unless the preferred kicking LE is also the preferred plant or landing LE, this operational definition of LE dominance is potentially problematic. Given the epidemiological data, costs and long-term medical impacts, it is apparent choosing the appropriate LE for testing is imperative.

To date, only one investigation has been published exploring the relationship between the preferred kicking LE and the preferred landing LE.25 This investigation indicated that there were weak correlations between these two measures of LE dominance in a sample of healthy, active college students. For a number of reasons explored in the literature, athletes demonstrate an elevated risk of orthopedic injury, than their healthy, but non-athlete peers.26–29 In athletes however, the strength of correlation between LE dominance measures remains unknown. Optimal prediction of LE dominance for injury risk would benefit athletes even more than the values in a general, healthy population.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between the LE used to kick a ball with and the limb identified at greater risk of ACL injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division III athletes. The hypothesis was that these measures will indicate stronger correlations in athletes than reported in healthy non-athletes.25

METHODS

The authors utilized an observational, descriptive investigation design30,31 with counterbalanced, repeated measures. This investigation was granted Institutional Review Board approval. Inclusion Criteria required participants to be 1) between the ages of 18-25 and 2) currently active on their NCAA Division III football, soccer, field hockey, volleyball, basketball, or lacrosse team roster. Athletes from the included sports were recruited to participate as they are at increased risk for non-contact ACL injury.27–29,32,33 Participants were excluded from the study if within the prior six months they had: 1) utilized crutches for any LE injury or 2) missed a regularly scheduled intercollegiate competition due to a LE injury, 3) engaged in a rehabilitation program for a LE injury or 4) inability to demonstrate any of the required physical activities in the study. These exclusions were to assure unbiased LE function, and optimize participant safety.

An a-priori power analysis using publicly available freeware (G*Power v 3.1.9.2, Düsseldorf, Germany) indicated that a minimum sample size of 34 was needed to achieve a power of 0.80. To ensure that a Type II error was not committed, forty-six student-athletes healthy, NCAA D-III participants between the age of 18 and 25 were recruited for this investigation. Data were collected during a single session in the Westfield State University Biomechanics laboratory. Upon receiving written informed consent, height, weight, age, and sport team were recorded. The participant then performed two tasks (kicking a ball; unilateral landing) in a counterbalanced order.

Kicking Task

Participants were asked to jog 300cm (3 meters) to kick a stationary soccer ball through a 100cm (1 meter) wide target, 300cm (3 meters) away. Each individual completed five trials of this activity. The LE the participant chose to kick a ball with three out of five trials was defined as their preferred kicking LE.25 Participants were asked to jog and kick the ball rather than kick it from a stationary position as we felt this methodology more realistically represented how the activity would take place.

Landing Task

Participants were asked to stand on a box 30cm in height, and instructed to lean forward and drop from the box, landing on their preferred leg. Each individual completed five trials of this activity. The LE the participant chose to land with three out of five trials was defined as their preferred landing LE and is consistent with previous investigations.25,34,35

Statistical Analyses

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated (SPSS v26, IBM, Armonk, NY) to determine the relationship between preferred landing LE and preferred kicking LE. A Chi-square value was calculated to explore for observed and expected frequencies.

RESULTS

The forty-five participants represented six sports (football= 11, men’s soccer= 1, women’s soccer= 8, women’s lacrosse= 1, women’s volleyball= 10, field hockey= 14). Thirty-three female, and 12 male participants completed the study (19.48±1.23years, 171.75±10.47cm, 77.26±18.74kg). Twenty-five participants kicked and landed with the same limb. Twenty participants chose kicking and landing with different limbs (Table 1). The Phi Coefficient (Φ= 0.001; p= 0.97) indicated little to no relationship between the LE a participant kicked and landed with. Likewise, the Chi-square statistic revealed no differences between observed and expected frequencies (χ2= 0.001; p= 0.97).

Table 1. Frequencies of preferred dominance.

Preferred Kicking LE
Left Right
Preferred Landing LE Left 3 16
Right 4 22

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this investigation was to correlate the preferred LE in kicking a ball, and the LE preferred from a drop landing in athletes. The investigators hypothesized the correlations would be stronger in athletes than the previous findings in healthy, active, non-athletes. The findings of this study did not support the stated hypothesis, as weaker correlations were seen in these athletes than in previous descriptions of healthy, active non-athletes.

There is little discrepancy for defining upper extremity dominance.36,37 In contrast, previous investigations have utilized various definitions for LE dominance. Among the various singular strategies have been utilization of stance or weight-bearing LE,19 the preferred single LE for landing task,38 or through a battery of tests.39 The most common operational definition in the literature however, involves the preferred LE for kicking a ball.20–23

The utilization of a consistent and task specific LE selection is essential for application of any research finding. Epidemiological evidence on ACL injury incidence contrasts with the rationale for LE selection in the majority of investigations. Data show ACL injuries occur more frequently with a unilateral landing,24 during a non-contact mechanism,1–4 and do not occur as frequently to the kicking LE.17 The most frequent strategy for LE dominance selection then, seemingly is potentially problematic when attempting to understand ACL injury risk.

The hypothesis was generated from the understanding that athletes demonstrate a high level of motor skills as they perform at ever higher levels of competition. These motor skills often necessitate incredible unilateral control. Indeed, prior work in dancers has suggested level of expertise may affect preferred LE for skill performance, even where bilateralism is expected.24 Previous work from two of the current investigation’s authors (PAC, CRC)25 explored the same correlation analysis in a group of healthy and active, but non-athletes. The results of that study indicated weak correlations between the preferred kicking and landing LE. The data in this study indicate even weaker, and statistically insignificant correlations in athletes. Given this, previous injury risk identification investigations may have obtained results from the LE less likely to be injured as a result.

Among the premises of this investigation are that athletes differ from healthy, active non-athlete individuals of a similar age. Of greater concern is that athletes demonstrate an elevated risk of ACL injury than their healthy, active, but non-athlete peers.26–29 Another study limitation is that due to the selection of sport teams, data were collected on a higher number of females versus males. As females have demonstrated a greater incidence of ACL injury in the literature,33,40,41 the authors feel that the data remain consistent with the purpose of this study. Finally, the exclusion criteria were selected to investigate these skills in only those who are currently performing at high levels of function and competition. Including individuals who had returned to a full function from LE surgery is more representative of a realistic scenario in the collegiate population, and has been previously utilized for that effort.35,42 This is however, may be considered a limitation of this investigation.

The findings in this investigation raise several areas of interest for future investigations. Among these are exploring any connection between upper and lower extremity dominance. Additionally, exploration of the relationship of the lower extremity with greater likelihood of injury to the operational dominance definitions as seen in sports with an elevated need for bilateralism such as lacrosse and soccer is warranted.

CONCLUSION

NCAA Division III athletes display a statistical absence of predictability in definitions of LE dominance. Even though athletes develop greater unilaterality as level of competition increases, the results suggest that the most prevalent dominance definition (the limb with which one kicks a ball) may be problematic when exploring ACL injury risk in this population. As ACL injury risk is elevated in the preferred planting versus kicking limb, careful consideration should be given to the operational definition of LE limb dominance in future injury risk studies.

DISCLOSURES

There are no author disclosures regarding this investigation or preparation of this manuscript. There were no funding sources for this investigation.

References

  1. The unhappy triad: etiology, diagnosis and treatment. O'Donoghue Don H. 1964American Journal of Orthopedics. 6:242–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Boden Barry P, Dean G Scott, Feagin Jr John A, Garrett Jr William E. Jun;2000 Orthopedics. 23(6):573–578. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-20000601-15. 00661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Understanding and preventing noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a review of the Hunt Valley II meeting, January 2005. Griffin L. Y., Albohm Marjorie J, Arendt Elizabeth A, Bahr Roald, Beynnon Bruce D, DeMaio Marlene, Dick Randall W, Engebretsen Lars, Garrett Jr William E. Jun 26;2006 American Journal of Sports Medicine. 34(9):1512–1532. doi: 10.1177/0363546506286866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Intraarticular injuries associated with anterior cruciate ligament tear: findings at ligament reconstruction in high school and recreational athletes. Piasecki D.P., Spindler K.P., Warren T.A., Andrish J.T., Parker R.D. 2003The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 31(4):601–605. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310042101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Epidemiology of Knee Injuries among U.S. High School Athletes, 2005/2006–2010/2011. Swenson David M., Collins Christy L., Best Thomas M., Flanigan David C., Fields Sarah K., Comstock R. Dawn. Mar;2013 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 45(3):462–469. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318277acca. 00003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. The incidence of knee ligament injuries in the general population. Miyasaka Kenji C, Daniel Dale M, Stone Mary Lou, Hirshman Paul. Jan;1991 The American Journal of Knee Surgery. 4:3–8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the female athlete. Huston Laura J, Greenfield Mary Lou VH, Wojtys Edward M. Mar;2000 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 372:50–63. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200003000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. The Role of ACL Injury in the Development of Posttraumatic Knee Osteoarthritis. Friel Nicole A., Chu Constance R. Jan;2013 Clinics in Sports Medicine. 32:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.csm.2012.08.017. 00007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Increase in outpatient knee arthroscopy in the United States: a comparison of National Surveys of Ambulatory Surgery, 1996 and 2006. Kim S, Bosque J, Meehan JP, Jamali A, Marder R. 2011Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. 93(11):994–1000. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01618. 00095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Mall N. A., Chalmers P. N., Moric M., Tanaka M. J., Cole B. J., Bach B. R., Paletta G. A. Aug 1;2014 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 42(10):2363–2370. doi: 10.1177/0363546514542796. 00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Societal and economic impact of anterior cruciate ligament tears. Mather Richard C., Koenig Lane, Kocher Mininder S, Dall Timothy M, Gallo Paul, Scott Daniel J, Bach Jr Bernard B, Spindler Kurt P. Oct 2;2013 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 95(19):1751. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01705. 00004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Minimum 10-Year results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: How the loss of normal knee motion compounds other factors related to the development of osteoarthritis after surgery. Shelbourne K. D., Gray T. Mar 1;2009 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 37(3):471–480. doi: 10.1177/0363546508326709. 00078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Current concepts for injury prevention in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Hewett T. E., Di Stasi S. L., Myer G. D. Oct 5;2012 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 41:216–224. doi: 10.1177/0363546512459638. 00000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Kvist Joanna, Ek Anna, Sporrstedt Katja, Good Lars. Feb 10;2005 Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 13(5):393–397. doi: 10.1007/s00167-004-0591-8. 00181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ways of experiencing participation and factors affecting the activity level after nonreconstructed anterior cruciate ligament injury: a qualitative study. Österberg Annika, Kvist Joanna, Dahlgren Madeleine Abrandt. Mar;2013 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 43(3):172–183. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2013.4278. 00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sports injury surveillance systems, 'One size fits all?'. van Mechelen Willem. 1997Sports Medicine. 24(3):164–168. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199724030-00003. 00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury in basketball: video analysis of 39 cases. Krosshaug T., Nakamae A., Boden B. P., Engebretsen L., Smith G., Slauterbeck J. R., Hewett T. E., Bahr R. Nov 7;2006 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 35(3):359–367. doi: 10.1177/0363546506293899. 00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. The Relationship Between Lower Extremity Closed Kinetic Chain Strength & Sagittal Plane Landing Kinematics in Female Athletes. Carcia C. R, Kivlan B., Scibek J. S. 2011International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 6:1–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. ACL Research Retreat V: An update on ACL risk and prevention, March 25-27, 2010, Greensboro, NC. Shultz Sandra J, Schmitz Randy J, Nguyen Anh-Dung, Chaudhari Ajit M, Padua Darin A, McLean Scott G, Sigward Susan M. 2010Journal of Athletic Training. 45(5):499–508. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-45.5.499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sex differences in eccentric hip-abductor strength and knee-joint kinematics when landing from a jump. Jacobs C., Mattacola C. 2005Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 14(4):346–355. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lower-limb dominance as a possible etiologic factor in noncontact anterior cruciate ligament tears. Negrete Rodney J., Schick Elizabeth A., Cooper Joshua P. 2007The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 21:270–273. doi: 10.1519/00124278-200702000-00048. 00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Limb Dominance as a potential etiological factor in noncontact anterior cruciate ligament tears. Matava Matthew J, Freehill Angela K, Grutzner Sally, Shannon William. 2002Journal of Knee Surgery. 15:11–16. 00000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Eccentric hip adduction and abduction strength in elite soccer players and matched controls: a cross-sectional study. Thorborg K., Couppe C., Petersen J., Magnusson S. P., Holmich P. Oct 22;2009 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 45:10–13. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.061762. 00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gender influences: the role of leg dominance in ACL injury among soccer players. Brophy R., Silvers H. J., Gonzales T., Mandelbaum B. R. Jun;2010 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 44(10):694–697. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.051243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Defining Lower Extremity Dominance: The Relationship Between Preferred Lower Extremity and Two Functional Tasks. Carcia Christopher R., Cacolice Paul A., McGeary Scott. Apr;2019 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 14(2):188–191. doi: 10.26603/ijspt20190188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Anterior cruciate ligament injury patterns among collegiate men and women. Arendt E.A., Agel J., Dick R. 1999Journal of Athletic Training. 34(2):86–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball and soccer: a 13-year review. Agel J., Arendt Elizabeth A, Bershadsky Boris. Feb 8;2005 American Journal of Sports Medicine. 33(4):524–531. doi: 10.1177/0363546504269937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's basketball injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988–1989 through 2003–2004. Agel Julie, Olson David E., Dick Randall, Arendt Elizabeth A., Marshall Stephen W., Sikka Robby S. 2007Journal of athletic training. 42(2):202. 00099. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate men's football injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System 1988-1989 through 2003-2004. Dick Randall, Ferrara Michael S, Agel Julie, Courson Ron, Marshall Stephen W., Hanley Michael J, Reifsteck Fred. 2007Journal of Athletic Training. 42(2):221–233. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Portney Leslie Gross. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice; Philadelphia. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; [Google Scholar]
  31. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Grimes David A, Schulz Kenneth F. Jan;2002 The Lancet. 359(9300):57–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Comparing the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in collegiate lacrosse, soccer, and basketball players: implications for anterior cruciate ligament mechanism and prevention. Mihata L. C. S. Feb 1;2006 American Journal of Sports Medicine. 34(6):899–904. doi: 10.1177/0363546505285582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer NCAA data and review of literature. Arendt Elizabeth, Dick Randall. 1995The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 23(6):694–701. doi: 10.1177/036354659502300611. 01244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Research Dominance Definitions May Not Identify Higher Risk Limb for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Cacolice Paul A, Starkey Brianna E, Carcia Christopher R, Higgins Paul E. Jun;2020 Journal of Athletic Training. 55(6S):S–95. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-55.6s.S-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. The Use of Function Tests to Predict Sagittal Plane Knee Kinematics In NCAA-D1 Female Athletes. Cacolice Paul A, Carcia Christopher R, Scibek Jason S, Phelps Amy L. Aug;2015 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 10(4):493–504. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. The effects of age, gender and shoulder dominance on range of motion at the shoulder. Barnes Christopher J, Van Steyn Scott J, Fischer Richard A. May;2001 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 10(3):242–246. doi: 10.1067/mse.2001.115270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. The acute effects of sleeper stretches on shoulder range of motion. Laudner K. G., Sipes R. C., Wilson J. T. 2008Journal of Athletic Training. 43(4):359. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-43.4.359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gender differences in leg stiffness and stiffness recruitment strategy during two-legged hopping. Padua D. A., Carcia C. R., Arnold B. L., Granata K. P. 2005Journal of Motor Behavior. 37(2):111–126. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.37.2.111-126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Determination of functional strength imbalance of the lower extremities. Newton Robert U., Gerber Aimee, Nimphius Sophia, Shim Jae K., Doan Brandon K., Robertson Mike, Pearson David R., Craig Bruce W., Häkkinen Keijo, Kraemer William J. 2006The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 20(4):971–977. doi: 10.1519/R-5050501x.1. 00089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: epidemiology. Ireland M.L. 1999Journal of Athletic Training. 34(2):150–154. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. The relative incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in men and women at the United States Naval Academy. Gwinn David E., Wilckens John H., McDevitt Edward R., Ross Glen, Kao Tzu-Cheg. 2000The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 28:98–102. doi: 10.1177/03635465000280012901. 00261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ground reaction forces are predicted with functional and clinical tests in healthy collegiate students. Cacolice Paul A, Carcia Christopher R, Scibek Jason S, Phelps Amy L. 2020Journal of Clinical Medicine. 9(9):2907. doi: 10.3390/jcm9092907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy are provided here courtesy of North American Sports Medicine Institute

RESOURCES