Literature DB >> 31104227

Factors Influencing the Relationship Between the Functional Movement Screen and Injury Risk in Sporting Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Emma Moore1, Samuel Chalmers2,3, Steve Milanese4, Joel T Fuller5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the association between the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and sports injury risk have reported mixed results across a range of athlete populations.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify whether athlete age, sex, sport type, injury definition and mechanism contribute to the variable findings. STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in October 2018 using PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, EmBase and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they were peer reviewed and published in English language, included athletes from any competition level, performed the FMS at baseline to determine risk groups based on FMS composite score, asymmetry or pain, and prospectively observed injury incidence during training and competition. Study eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine odds ratio (OR), sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals. Sub-group analyses were based on athlete age, sex, sport type, injury definition, and injury mechanism.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in the FMS composite score meta-analysis. There was a smaller effect for junior (OR = 1.03 [0.67-1.59]; p = 0.881) compared to senior athletes (OR = 1.80 [1.17-2.78]; p = 0.008) and for male (OR = 1.79 [1.08-2.96]; p = 0.024) compared to female (OR = 1.92 [0.43-8.56]; p = 0.392) athletes. FMS composite scores were most likely to be associated with increased injury risk in rugby (OR = 5.92 [1.67-20.92]; p = 0.006), and to a lesser extent American football (OR = 4.41 [0.94-20.61]; p = 0.059) and ice hockey (OR = 3.70 [0.89-15.42]; p = 0.072), compared to other sports. Specificity values were higher than sensitivity values for FMS composite score. Eleven studies were included in the FMS asymmetry meta-analysis with insufficient study numbers to generate sport type subgroups. There was a larger effect for senior (OR = 1.78 [1.16-2.73]; p = 0.008) compared to junior athletes (OR = 1.21 [0.75-1.96]; p = 0.432). Sensitivity values were higher than specificity values for FMS asymmetry. For all FMS outcomes, there were minimal differences across injury definitions and mechanisms. Only four studies provided information about FMS pain and injury risk. There was a smaller effect for senior athletes (OR = 1.28 [0.33-4.96]; p = 0.723) compared to junior athletes (OR = 1.71 [1.16-2.50]; p = 0.006). Specificity values were higher than sensitivity values for FMS pain.
CONCLUSION: Athlete age, sex and sport type explained some of the variable findings of FMS prospective injury-risk studies. FMS composite scores and asymmetry were more useful for estimating injury risk in senior compared to junior athletes. Effect sizes tended to be small except for FMS composite scores in rugby, ice hockey and American football athletes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42018092916.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31104227     DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01126-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sports Med        ISSN: 0112-1642            Impact factor:   11.136


  59 in total

Review 1.  Examining diagnostic tests: an evidence-based perspective.

Authors:  J M Fritz; R S Wainner
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2001-09

Review 2.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 3.  Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism.

Authors:  Peter O'Sullivan
Journal:  Man Ther       Date:  2005-09-09

4.  Epidemiology of injuries in English professional rugby union: part 1 match injuries.

Authors:  J H M Brooks; C W Fuller; S P T Kemp; D B Reddin
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 5.  Understanding injury mechanisms: a key component of preventing injuries in sport.

Authors:  R Bahr; T Krosshaug
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 6.  For debate: consensus injury definitions in team sports should focus on encompassing all injuries.

Authors:  Lisa Hodgson; Conor Gissane; Tim J Gabbett; Doug A King
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.638

7.  Delayed trunk muscle reflex responses increase the risk of low back injuries.

Authors:  Jacek Cholewicki; Sheri P Silfies; Riaz A Shah; Hunter S Greene; N Peter Reeves; Kashif Alvi; Barry Goldberg
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  A prospective cohort study of the incidence of injuries among junior Australian football players: evidence for an effect of playing-age level.

Authors:  M Romiti; C F Finch; B Gabbe
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2007-12-07       Impact factor: 13.800

9.  For debate: consensus injury definitions in team sports should focus on missed playing time.

Authors:  John Orchard; Wayne Hoskins
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.638

10.  Differential neuromuscular training effects on ACL injury risk factors in"high-risk" versus "low-risk" athletes.

Authors:  Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Jensen L Brent; Timothy E Hewett
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2007-05-08       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  8 in total

1.  Can the Functional Movement Screen Method Identify Previously Injured Wushu Athletes?

Authors:  Di Wang; Xiao-Mei Lin; Juha-Pekka Kulmala; Arto J Pesola; Ying Gao
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  Sport-Specific Functional Tests and Related Sport Injury Risk and Occurrences in Junior Basketball and Soccer Athletes.

Authors:  Wen-Dien Chang; Chi-Cheng Lu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Effects of functional correction training on injury risk of athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Junxia Chen; Chunhe Zhang; Sheng Chen; Yuhua Zhao
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Low composite functional movement screen score associated with decline of gait stability in young adults.

Authors:  Myeounggon Lee; Changhong Youm; Byungjoo Noh; Hwayoung Park
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Establishing Age- and Sex-Specific Norms for Pediatric Return-to-Sports Physical Performance Testing.

Authors:  John R Magill; Heather S Myers; Trevor A Lentz; Laura Pietrosimone; Thomas Risoli; Cindy L Green; Emily K Reinke; Michael R Messer; Jonathan C Riboh
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-08-19

Review 6.  Effects of Exercise-Based Interventions on Functional Movement Capability in Untrained Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jiafu Huang; Mengting Zhong; Jinghao Wang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Does Cycling Training Reduce Quality of Functional Movement Motor Patterns and Dynamic Postural Control in Adolescent Cyclists? A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Bartosz Zając; Anna Mika; Paulina Katarzyna Gaj; Tadeusz Ambroży
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 4.614

8.  Prediction and injury risk based on movement patterns and flexibility in a 6-month prospective study among physically active adults.

Authors:  Dawid Koźlenia; Jarosaw Domaradzki
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.984

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.