Clinical implications of Landing Error Scoring System calculation methods

Abstract

Objectives: To explore whether final Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores differ between calculation methods used in literature.

Design: Cross-sectional.

Setting: Laboratory.

Participants: 328 individuals.

Main outcome measures: LESS scores from 984 drop-jumps were extracted. Final LESS scores were calculated for every participant according to five methods: mean of 3 jumps, 1st jump score, 3rd jump score, best jump score, and sum of errors present in at least 2 jumps. The influence of the calculation method on group mean LESS score and group-level risk categorization using threshold of 5 errors was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations, with the mean of 3 jumps score set as the reference method. The agreement in individual-level risk categorization was assessed using odds ratios and McNemar's tests.

Results: Compared to the reference, estimated group mean LESS score was 0.92 errors lower (p < 0.001) using the best jump method, as was group-level risk categorization (odds ratio: 0.50, p < 0.001). Individual-level risk categorization between calculation methods was inconsistent for 8–15% of participants compared to the reference method, significantly different from reference for the best jump score method (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Calculation method meaningfully influences final LESS scores and risk categorization.