Gravity correction and knee isokinetic torque parameters and hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios: reference equations from a large ACL cohort

BACKGROUND: Inconsistency in applying gravity-correction during knee isokinetic dynamometry limits direct comparisons across sports medicine literature. This study aimed to develop and internally validate reference equations relating knee peak torque parameters measured with and without gravity correction in an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) cohort. METHODS: 439 individuals with a confirmed ACL rupture underwent concentric isokinetic knee extension and flexion testing at 60, 180, and 300°/s using a HUMAC Norm dynamometer. Peak torque values and hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios were calculated using both gravity-corrected and uncorrected protocols. Relationships were modelled using linear mixed-effects models with a participant-level random intercept, fitted separately by sex, velocity and outcome. RESULTS: ranged from 0.95 to 0.99 for knee extensors, 0.90 to 0.97 for knee flexors, and 0.68 to 0.87 for H:Q ratios. Cross-validated prediction error was small for torque (RMSE 3.3-5.1 Nm; LoA ± 6.5 to ± 10.0 Nm) but larger and velocity-dependent for the H:Q ratio (RMSE 3.6-7.9 percentage points; LoA ± 7.1 to ± 15.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: These equations provide an internally validated reference for approximating peak torque between gravity-corrected and non-gravity-corrected protocols within a comparable cohort and testing set-up; the H:Q equations should be applied with caution, particularly at higher velocities. Neither protocol is inherently superior, but explicit reporting of whether gravity correction was applied is essential to avoid confounding when datasets are compared or pooled.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Knee
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2026.104616
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Gravity correction and knee isokinetic torque parameters and hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios: reference equations from a large ACL cohort

Charlotte Ganderton, Adrian Pranata, Oren Tirosh, Rhiarna Hill et al.
The Knee
Sports Performance and Training
article

Gravity correction and knee isokinetic torque parameters and hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios: reference equations from a large ACL cohort

Charlotte Ganderton, Adrian Pranata, Oren Tirosh, Rhiarna Hill, Nigel Hartnett
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inconsistency in applying gravity-correction during knee isokinetic dynamometry limits direct comparisons across sports medicine literature. This study aimed to develop and internally validate reference equations relating knee peak torque parameters measured with and without gravity correction in an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) cohort. METHODS: 439 individuals with a confirmed ACL rupture underwent concentric isokinetic knee extension and flexion testing at 60, 180, and 300°/s using a HUMAC Norm dynamometer. Peak torque values and hamstring-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios were calculated using both gravity-corrected and uncorrected protocols. Relationships were modelled using linear mixed-effects models with a participant-level random intercept, fitted separately by sex, velocity and outcome. RESULTS: ranged from 0.95 to 0.99 for knee extensors, 0.90 to 0.97 for knee flexors, and 0.68 to 0.87 for H:Q ratios. Cross-validated prediction error was small for torque (RMSE 3.3-5.1 Nm; LoA ± 6.5 to ± 10.0 Nm) but larger and velocity-dependent for the H:Q ratio (RMSE 3.6-7.9 percentage points; LoA ± 7.1 to ± 15.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: These equations provide an internally validated reference for approximating peak torque between gravity-corrected and non-gravity-corrected protocols within a comparable cohort and testing set-up; the H:Q equations should be applied with caution, particularly at higher velocities. Neither protocol is inherently superior, but explicit reporting of whether gravity correction was applied is essential to avoid confounding when datasets are compared or pooled.

The KneeVol. 63
Burnet Institute (AU), La Trobe University (AU), Swinburne University of Technology (AU), RMIT University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Sports Performance and Training
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.