This study aimed to reveal the functional ability of functional movement screening (FMS) scores in determining an athlete's predisposition to injury. One hundred (50 females and 50 males) university level athletes, weight of 69.44 ± 5.84 kg, height of 172.69 ± 7.26 cm, age of 22.56 ± 2.99 years and Baecke score 21.66 ± 1.73, practised in football, handball and basketball sports (at least for 5 years), with no recent (<6 weeks) history of musculoskeletal injury were recruited. Of the 100 subjects, 35 of them suffered an acute, lower extremity (ankle = 20 and knee = 15 subjects) injury. An odds ratio was calculated at 4.70, meaning that an athlete has an approximately 4.7 times greater chance of suffering a lower extremity injury during a regular competitive season if they score less than 17 on the FMS. This study provides FMS reference values for university level athletes that will assist in the interpretation of individual scores when screening athletes for musculoskeletal injury and performance factors. More research is still necessary before implementing the FMS into a pre-participation physical examination for athletics, but due to the low cost and its simplicity to implement, it should be considered by clinicians and researchers in the future.

Background In this study, the effect of adding a smartphone app to an 8-week global postural reeducation (GPR) on neck pain, endurance, quality of life, and forward head posture (FHP) in patients with chronic neck pain and FHP was evaluated. Methods Sixty male and female office workers (38.5 ± 9.1 years) with chronic neck pain were randomly assigned into three groups: group 1 (GPR+ a smartphone app, n = 20), group 2 (GPR alone, n = 20), and group 3 (the control group, n = 20). The primary outcome was pain and the secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, endurance, and posture. Pain, disability, endurance, quality of life, and posture were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), progressive iso-inertial lifting evaluation (PILE) test, quality of life questionnaire (SF-36), and photogrammetry, respectively, at pre-and post-8-week interventions. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) has been conducted to statistically analyze the data. Results The GPR+ a smartphone app had statistically significant improvements versus GPR alone in pain (mean difference, − 2.05 ± 0.65, ES (95% CI) − 0.50 (− 1.04 to − 0.01), P = 0.04), disability (difference = 11.5 ± 1.2, ES (95% CI) = 0.31 (0.22 to 0.97), p = 0.033), FHP (difference = 1.6 ± 0.2, ES (95% CI) = 0.31 (0.09 to 0.92), p = 0.047), and endurance (difference = 2 ± 3.3, ES (95% CI) = 0.51 (0.02 to 1.03), p = 0.039). Both of the GPR+ a smartphone app and GPR alone groups had statistically significant differences versus the control group in all outcomes. Conclusion When a workplace assessment and management could not be as part of any intervention, adding a smartphone app to GPR for NP may be an appropriate tool to administer a home and work exercise program resulting in elevating pain and disability, as well as improving FHP and endurance. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials using the UMIN-RCT website UMIN000039720. Retrospectively registered on January 9, 2020.

Background The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of a six-week combined manual therapy (MT) and stabilizing exercises (SEs), with a one-month follow-up on neck pain and improving function and posture in patients with forward head and rounded shoulder postures (FHRSP). Methods Sixty women with neck pain and FHRSP were randomized into three groups: Group 1 performed SE and received MT ( n = 20), Group 2 performed SE (n = 20) and Group 3 performed home exercises (n = 20) for six weeks. The follow-up time was one month after the post test. The pain, function, and head and shoulder angles were measured before and after the six-week interventions, and during a one-month follow-up. Results There were significant within-group improvements in pain, function, and head and shoulder posture in groups 1 and 2. There were significant between-group differences in groups 1 and 2 in head posture, pain, and function favoring group 1 with effect size 0.432( p = 0.041), 0.533 ( P = 0.038), and 0.565( P = 0.018) respectively. There were significant between-group differences in both intervention groups versus the control group favoring the intervention groups. Conclusion These findings suggest that both interventions were significantly effective in reducing neck pain and improving function and posture in patients. However, the improvement in function and pain were more effective in Group 1 as compared to Group 2, suggesting that MT can be used as a supplementary method to the stabilizing intervention in the treatment of neck pain. More researches are needed to confirm the result of this study. Trial registration UMIN000030141 modified on 2018.03.08. This study is a randomized control trial registered at UMIN-CTR website, the trial was retrospectively registered and the unique trial number is UMIN000030141 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2438-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of scapular exercises alone and combined with cognitive functional therapy in treating patients with chronic neck pain and scapular downward rotation impairment. Design: Single-blind randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient. Subjects: A total of 72 patients (20–45 years old) with chronic neck pain were studied. Intervention: Allocation was undertaken into three groups: scapular exercise ( n = 24), scapular exercise with cognitive functional therapy ( n = 24) and control ( n = 24) groups. Each programme lasted three times a week for six weeks. Main outcomes: The primary outcome measure was pain intensity measured by the visual analogue scale scores. The secondary outcome measures included kinesiophobia and muscles activity. Results: Statistically significant differences in pain intensity were found when multidisciplinary physiotherapy group including a cognitive functional approach was compared with the scapular exercise alone group at six weeks (effect size (95% CI) = −2.56 (−3.32 to −1.80); P = 0.019). Regarding kinesiophobia, a significant between-group difference was observed at six-week (effect size (95% CI) = −2.20 (−2.92 to −1.49); P = 0.005), with the superiority of effect in multidisciplinary physiotherapy group. A significant between-group differences was observed in muscle activity. Also, there were significant between-group differences favouring experimental groups versus control. Conclusion: A group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme including scapular exercise plus cognitive functional therapy was superior to group-based scapular exercise alone for improving pain intensity, kinesiophobia and muscle activation in participants with chronic neck pain.

The results suggest that a sensorimotor training program causes significant improvement in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. Future research should be carried out with a larger sample size to examine the long term effects of the sensorimotor training program on treatment of patients with chronic non-specific LBP. Considering the efficacy of the sensorimotor training, it is recommended that this intervention should be applied to treatment of patients with chronic non-specific LBP in the future.