Table 3

Risk of unilateral ACL injury

AuthorPatients, n injury/control (male)Mean hypermobility score *Proportion of hypermobile patients (%)Risk of ACL injury, OR (95% CI)P valueConsideration for differences in sex and age
ACL injuryControlsACL injuryControlsHypermobile
Akhtar et al33209 (157) and A matched
Anderson et al3434 (20) and A matched
Kramer et al3166 (0) age
Ramesh et al35234 (NI)42.621.5<0.05No
Scerpella et al38
BS, males103 (103)1.6±1.61.1±1.4NSA difference‡
BS, females114 (0)2.5±2.12.5±1.7NSA difference‡
AHS, males103 (103)4.2±2.12.5±2.1<0.05A difference‡
AHS, females114 (0)5.4±2.64.3±2.2<0.05A difference‡
Shimozaki et al7168 (0)1.8±1.32.7±2.20.04A matched
Stijak et al3729 (29)2.3§0.005A matched
Stijak et al3912 (0)4.7§NSA matched
Uhorchak et al4
All patients859 (739)3.5±2.71.8±2.1<0.001A matched
Males739 (739)2.9±2.71.6±2.00.003
Females120 (0)4.6±2.53.2±2.40.014
Vacek et al32336¶
Males1.3 (1.1 to 1.7)0.025A matched
FemalesNINSA matched
Vaishya and Hasija36300 (190)60.525.5<0.01S and A matched
  • *The particular method for each study of evaluation of hypermobility can be seen in the online supplementary table 2.

  • †Unclear if there was a statistical difference in age between the groups.

  • ‡Statistical significant difference in age between the groups.

  • §Measured graphically using ImageJ from Figure 4 in the respective articles.

  • ¶No information regarding the sex of the controls.

  • A, age; AHS, Adjusted Hypermobility Score; BS, Beighton Score; NI, no information; NS, not significant; S, sex.