## 4 Discussion
[27], the values of the H/Q ratios were as follows: 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.08 at 30\({}^{\circ}\)/s, 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.16 at 120\({}^{\circ}\)/s, and 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.40 at 240\({}^{\circ}\)/s. These values are similar to those obtained at 30\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 240\({}^{\circ}\)/s in our study. In turn, this systematic review states that the cut-off point for the H/Q ratio should be 0.60. Below this value, the risk of suffering a knee joint injury increases. If we consider the value of 0.60, the values obtained in the present study at 30\({}^{\circ}\)/s would be within the safety range if we take the value of the PA position; however, if we consider the value of the AA position, we could conclude that there is a greater risk of knee injury. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the correct way to position the pad to detect possible injury risks more accurately. For ischiocrural muscle injuries, the cut-off point is set at 0.47 [28], although [PERSON] et al. [29] state that this point should not be taken as a reference since, in their study, only 2.7% of the athletes who sustained a muscle injury were below this value. [PERSON] et al. [30] determined that, in terms of the conventional ratio, taking a value of 0.658 as a cut-off point has a greater sensitivity (and therefore fewer false negatives) than a value of 0.47. However, taking 0.47 as the cut-off point has a higher specificity than taking a value of 0.658 (and therefore fewer false positives). Thus, it is difficult to determine what cut-off point to set. All these discrepancies may have something to do with the measurement protocol and positioning of the measuring tool, so it is essential to determine the correct approach. In this sense, it is advisable to perform the measurements with the pad in the PA position since higher strength values are obtained in the hamstring muscles as well as a higher H/Q ratio because the quadricep strength does not vary with the change in position of the strap. By putting the pad in the AA position, the ratio values are lower, and there will be a greater number of patients who obtain values related to injury risk without having a real risk, which is simply a measurement error. This situation may be one of the problems for the current low injury prediction rate with the H/Q ratio value. The athlete's competitive level should also be considered when interpreting the strength and H/Q ratio data. [PERSON] et al. [31] evaluated first and second division Portuguese soccer players in their study. At low velocities (60\({}^{\circ}\)/s), the second division players had a lower concentric hamstring peak strength than the first division players (234 \(\pm\) 37 vs. 258 \(\pm\) 49, respectively) and a lower conventional H/Q ratio at 60\({}^{\circ}\)/s (0.59 \(\pm\) 0.1 vs. 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.1). With the data obtained in our study, we can establish that the strength value with the pad in AA position (244 \(\pm\) 78) would be closer to the strength values of second division soccer players. However, if we take the strength data of the PA position (277 \(\pm\) 78), it would be closer to the values of first division players. Although this statement has the limitation of the lever arm, as mentioned above, the present study's sample comprises basketball players. The same is true for the H/Q ratio at low velocities. The value of the ratio with the pad in the PA position (0.62 \(\pm\) 0.12) is similar to the value of the ratio of first division soccer players, and the value of the AA ratio (0.54 \(\pm\) 0.14) is more similar to the values of second division soccer players. The values of the ratios obtained in the present study are lower at a low angular velocity, with 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.14 and 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.12 at 30\({}^{\circ}\)/s, and increase as the velocity increases, 0.75 \(\pm\) 0.22 and 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.19 at 120\({}^{\circ}\)/s and 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.2 and 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.17 at 240\({}^{\circ}\)/s. These data are in accordance with the study by [PERSON] et al.