BACKGROUND: The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) has been the focus of recent research related to movement profiling and injury prediction. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the associations between physical performance tasks such as balance and the FMS™ screening system. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare measures of static balance in stable and unstable conditions between different groups divided by FMS™ scores. A secondary purpose was to discern if balance indices discriminate the groups divided by FMS™ scores. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifty-seven physically active subjects (25 men and 32 women; mean age of 22.9 ± 3.1 yrs) participated. The outcome was unilateral stance balance indices, composed by: Anteroposterior Index; Medial-lateral Index, and Overall Balance Index in stable and unstable conditions, as provided by the Biodex balance platform. Subjects were dichotomized into two groups, according to a FMS™ cut-off score of 14: FMS1 (score > 14) and FMS2 (score ≤ 14). The independent Students t-test was used to verify differences in balance indices between FMS1 and FMS2 groups. A discriminant analysis was applied in order to identify which of the balance indices would adequately discriminate the FMS™ groups. RESULTS: Comparisons between FMS1 and FMS2 groups in the stable and unstable conditions demonstrated a higher unstable Anteroposterior index for FMS2 (p=0.017). No significant differences were found for other comparisons (p>0.05). The indices did not discriminate the FMS™ groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The balance indices adopted in this study were not useful as a parameter for identification and discrimination of healthy subjects assessed by the FMS™. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
BACKGROUND: The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) has been the focus of recent research related to movement profiling and injury prediction. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the associations between physical performance tasks such as balance and the FMS™ screening system. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare measures of static balance in stable and unstable conditions between different groups divided by FMS™ scores. A secondary purpose was to discern if balance indices discriminate the groups divided by FMS™ scores. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifty-seven physically active subjects (25 men and 32 women; mean age of 22.9 ± 3.1 yrs) participated. The outcome was unilateral stance balance indices, composed by: Anteroposterior Index; Medial-lateral Index, and Overall Balance Index in stable and unstable conditions, as provided by the Biodex balance platform. Subjects were dichotomized into two groups, according to a FMS™ cut-off score of 14: FMS1 (score > 14) and FMS2 (score ≤ 14). The independent Students t-test was used to verify differences in balance indices between FMS1 and FMS2 groups. A discriminant analysis was applied in order to identify which of the balance indices would adequately discriminate the FMS™ groups. RESULTS: Comparisons between FMS1 and FMS2 groups in the stable and unstable conditions demonstrated a higher unstable Anteroposterior index for FMS2 (p=0.017). No significant differences were found for other comparisons (p>0.05). The indices did not discriminate the FMS™ groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The balance indices adopted in this study were not useful as a parameter for identification and discrimination of healthy subjects assessed by the FMS™. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
Entities:
Keywords:
Movement System; Physical Function; Physical Therapy Modalities; Postural balance
Authors: JoEllen M Sefton; Charlie A Hicks-Little; Tricia J Hubbard; Mark G Clemens; Christopher M Yengo; David M Koceja; Mitchell L Cordova Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2009-04-05 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Deydre S Teyhen; Mark A Riebel; Derrick R McArthur; Matthew Savini; Mackenzie J Jones; Stephen L Goffar; Kyle B Kiesel; Phillip J Plisky Journal: Mil Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Robert G Lockie; Samuel J Callaghan; Corrin A Jordan; Tawni M Luczo; Matthew D Jeffriess; Farzad Jalilvand; Adrian B Schultz Journal: J Hum Kinet Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 2.193