Literature DB >> 33344019

FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN™ (FMS™) SCORES DO NOT PREDICT OVERALL OR LOWER EXTREMITY INJURY RISK IN COLLEGIATE DANCERS.

Sarah M Coogan1, Catherine S Schock2, Jena Hansen-Honeycutt2, Shane Caswell1, Nelson Cortes1, Jatin P Ambegaonkar1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Dance is a physically demanding activity, with 50-85% of dancers suffering injury during a single performance season. The majority of dancers' injuries are in the lower extremity (LE) and chronic in nature. These injuries often arise when causal factors are not identified early and addressed before they ultimately result in an injury. Practitioners often use movement screens such as the Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) to detect and quantify kinetic chain dysfunction. Prior researchers have suggested that these screens can stratify at-risk individuals and allow practitioners to devise targeted interventions to reduce their injury risk. However, whether the FMS™ can identify at-risk dancers remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine whether FMS™ scores predicted injury risk in collegiate dancers.
METHODS: In this prospective study, 43 collegiate dance majors (34 female, 9 male; 18.3 ± 0.7yrs; 163.9 ± 7.3cm; 60.8 ± 8.1kg) in a program which emphasizes modern dance were scored on the seven FMS™ movements (scale 0-3, total maximum score=21) where 3=movement completed without compensation, 2=movement completed, but with compensation(s), 1=unable to complete movement, 0=pain during movement or during clearing tests as described in prior literature at the start of the academic year. An in-house certified athletic trainer documented dancer's overall and LE injuries over an academic year (40 weeks). Separate Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses examined whether composite FMS™ score predicted (1) Overall or (2) LE injury status.
RESULTS: The subjects FMS™ scores were 16.2 + 1.7 (range=11-19). Twenty dancers were injured, whereas 23 remained injury-free. Injured dancers had 55 overall (1.28 injuries/dancer) and 44 LE injuries (1.02 LE injuries/dancer). FMS™ score did not predict overall (AUC=.28, SE=.08, p=.02, 95%CI=.13-.43) or LE injury risk (AUC=.38, SE=.1, p=.21, 95% CI=.21-.56). DISCUSSION: While nearly half of the dancers in this group suffered from injury over the year, composite FMS™ scores did not predict overall or LE injury risk in collegiate dancers. Dancers face unique and challenging physical demands that distinguish them from traditional sport-athletes including greater ranges of movement during performance. Thus, the FMS™ may not be sensitive enough to distinguish 'appropriate' from 'excessive' mobility and adequately identify injury risk in dancers. Overall, it is suggested that practitioners should use caution before using the FMS™ as a primary screening mechanism to identify collegiate dancers at overall or LE injury risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
© 2020 by the Sports Physical Therapy Section.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aesthetic Athlete; Dance Medicine; Injury Prevention; Movement System; Screening Tool

Year:  2020        PMID: 33344019      PMCID: PMC7727434          DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20201029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 2159-2896


  39 in total

1.  Factor structure of the functional movement screen in marine officer candidates.

Authors:  Josh B Kazman; Jeffrey M Galecki; Peter Lisman; Patricia A Deuster; Francis G OʼConnor
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Interrater reliability of the functional movement screen.

Authors:  Kate I Minick; Kyle B Kiesel; Lee Burton; Aaron Taylor; Phil Plisky; Robert J Butler
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Can Serious Injury in Professional Football be Predicted by a Preseason Functional Movement Screen?

Authors:  Kyle Kiesel; Phillip J Plisky; Michael L Voight
Journal:  N Am J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2007-08

4.  Exploratory factor analysis of the functional movement screen in elite athletes.

Authors:  Yongming Li; Xiong Wang; Xiaoping Chen; Boyi Dai
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.337

5.  Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2.

Authors:  Gray Cook; Lee Burton; Barbara J Hoogenboom; Michael Voight
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2014-08

Review 6.  Efficacy of the functional movement screen: a review.

Authors:  Kornelius Kraus; Elisabeth Schütz; William R Taylor; Ralf Doyscher
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Use of clinical movement screening tests to predict injury in sport.

Authors:  Nicole J Chimera; Meghan Warren
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-04-18

8.  Lower Extremity Horizontal Work But Not Vertical Power Predicts Lower Extremity Injury in Female Collegiate Dancers.

Authors:  Jatin P Ambegaonkar; Catherine S Schock; Shane V Caswell; Nelson Cortes; Jena Hansen-Honeycutt; Matthew A Wyon
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.775

9.  The Functional Movement Screen: a reliability study.

Authors:  Deydre S Teyhen; Scott W Shaffer; Chelsea L Lorenson; Joshua P Halfpap; Dustin F Donofry; Michael J Walker; Jessica L Dugan; John D Childs
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 4.751

Review 10.  Hip and Groin Injuries in Dancers: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Natasha Trentacosta; Dai Sugimoto; Lyle J Micheli
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.843

View more
  1 in total

1.  Automatic Arrangement of Sports Dance Movement Based on Deep Learning.

Authors:  Hua Feng; Xiang Zhao; Xiaomin Zhang
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-10
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.