Prediction of Injury by Limited and Asymmetrical Fundamental Movement Patterns in American Football Players

Kiesel, Kyle; Butler, Robert J.; Plisky, Philip J.

doi:10.1123/jsr.2012-0130

Cited by 179 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This research adds to the growing body of evidence for the predictive value of FMS component tests for injuries (5,21,23,25,30,32 # indicates sensitivity or specificity that is significantly different from FMS composite score. § indicates sensitivity or specificity that is significantly different from DS+ASLR score.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…A recent review of FMS research indicated that there was "moderate scientific evidence" to support the use of FMS as a predictor of injury risk (27). Notably, for collision sport athletes, Kiesel et al (2007) showed that a FMS score ≤ 14 was predictive of serious injury (>21 days) in 4 professional American Football players (25), and that movement asymmetries highlighted by the FMS test increased relative injury risk (23). The link between low FMS scores and injury has also been demonstrated in female collegiate athletes (5), military (31,32) and general populations (30).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preseason Functional Movement Screen Component Tests Predict Severe Contact Injuries in Professional Rugby Union Players

Tee

Klingbiel²,

Collins

et al. 2016

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preseason Functional Movement Screen Component Tests Predict Severe Contact Injuries in Professional Rugby Union Players

Tee

Klingbiel²,

Collins

et al. 2016

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 In addition, some investigators used the cut score of 14 because it was established in an earlier study. 6,7 For our study sample of NCAA Division II athletes, the cut score of 15 was the mean score, and it was the first score that established an sn higher than 50%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Functional Movement Screen as a Predictor of Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Athletes

Dorrel

Long

Shaffer³

et al. 2018

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a tool used to assess the quality of human movement. Previous FMS researchers reported a difference between the comprehensive and individual FMS test scores of injured and uninjured participants.Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the FMS for predicting injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II athletes and to evaluate how an injury definition may affect the prognostic values.Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: University preparticipation examinations. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 257 collegiate athletes (men ¼ 176, women ¼ 81) between the ages of 18 and 24 years.Main Outcome Measure(s): The athletes were prospectively screened with the FMS and monitored for subsequent injury. The ability of the FMS to accurately predict musculoskeletal injuries, overall injuries, and severe injuries was determined.Results: The receiver operating characteristic curve provided the FMS cut score of 15 for the study sample. The areas under the curve were 0.53, 0.56, and 0.53 for musculoskeletal injury, overall injury, and severe injury, respectively. Sensitivity was 0.63 (0.62, 0.61, 0.65), whereas specificity was below 0.50 (0.49, 0.49, 0.45) for all 3 injury definitions of musculoskeletal injury, overall injury, and severe injury, respectively. Relative risk was 1.25 for musculoskeletal injuries, 1.24 for overall injuries, and 1.45 for severe injuries.Conclusions: The overall prognostic accuracy of the FMS offered a slightly better than 50/50 chance of correctly classifying those most at risk for injury. As such, the FMS did not provide discriminatory prediction of musculoskeletal injury, overall injury, or severe injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II athletes. Using the identified optimal cut score produced inadequate validity, regardless of the injury definition. We recommend using the FMS to assess movement quality rather than as a standalone injury-prediction tool until additional research suggests otherwise. Clinicians screening for injury risk should consider multiple risk factors identified in the literature. Key Words: sports injuries, musculoskeletal injuries, severe injuries Key PointsThe Functional Movement Screen had limited prognostic ability to accurately identify National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II athletes who might be at risk of injury. The Functional Movement Screen was unable to discriminate among injury classifications, and changes in the reference standard (injury definition) produced minimal changes in the prognostic ability. Further research is needed.T he Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a physical examination used to measure essential movement patterns in a practical and dynamic way. As designed, its purposes were to (1) identify body asymmetries, (2) assess mobility and stability within the kinetic chain of whole-body movements, and (3) detect poor-quality movement patterns.1À3 Applications of the FMS include screening for the possibility of future injury and establishin...

show abstract

“…A total of 18 articles were included that investigated the link between FMS score and injury risk (Table 7) [17,19,27,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. Ten [19, 27, 64, 70-74, 76, 77] of the 18 studies reported an association between the FMS composite score and injury.…”

Section: Functional Movement Screenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Association with Injury of Movement Screens: A Critical Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjective assessment of athletes' movement quality is widely used by physiotherapists and other applied practitioners within many sports. One of the beliefs driving this practice is that individuals who display 'poor' movement patterns are more likely to suffer an injury than those who do not. The aim of this review was to summarize the reliability of the movement screens currently documented within the scientific literature and explore the evidence surrounding their association with injury risk. Ten assessments with accompanying reliability data were identified through the literature search. Only two of these ten had any evidence directly related to injury risk. A number of methodological issues were present throughout the identified studies, including small sample sizes, lack of descriptive rater or participant information, ambiguous injury definitions, lack of exposure time reporting and risk of bias. These factors, combined with the paucity of research on this topic, make drawing conclusions as to the reliability and predictive ability of movement screens difficult. None of the movement screens that appear within the scientific literature currently have enough evidence to justify the tag of 'injury prediction tool'.

show abstract

Prediction of Injury by Limited and Asymmetrical Fundamental Movement Patterns in American Football Players

Abstract: The results of this study suggest that fundamental movement patterns and pattern asymmetry are identifiable risk factors for time-loss injury during the preseason in professional football players.

Cited by 179 publications

References 36 publications

Preseason Functional Movement Screen Component Tests Predict Severe Contact Injuries in Professional Rugby Union Players

Preseason Functional Movement Screen Component Tests Predict Severe Contact Injuries in Professional Rugby Union Players

The Functional Movement Screen as a Predictor of Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Athletes

Reliability and Association with Injury of Movement Screens: A Critical Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About