The Functional Movement Screen in the Prediction of Injury in Adolescent Cricket Pace Bowlers: An Observational Study

Martin, Candice; Olivier, Benita; Benjamin, Natalie

doi:10.1123/jsr.2016-0073

Cited by 26 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering the results of the studies with low risk of bias (Table 3), it is verified that FMS has a low sensitivity 20,22,40 , a good specificity 20,33 , and AUC values slightly above chance 20,22 . Three out of the four studies with low risk of bias used samples composed of soldiers 20,33,40 . These studies showed a higher score in the "selection" domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…OR values also ranged from 0.53 to 11.67, which corresponds, according to the literature, to absent and large effect sizes, respectively 41 . Only seven studies calculated the RR 20,27,34,35,40,42,43 , whose results were RR=1.86 (overuse injuries) 22 , RR=1.49 (traumatic injuries) 22 ; and RR=-0.5 40 to 2.73 39 (any injury). Thus, a low score in FMS™ is associated with higher injury risk, although this result is limited by the number of studies that calculate the RR and the high risk of bias in two of those studies 27,34 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, military groups are generally more homogeneous regarding various characteristics (age, level of fitness, volume of physical exercise, routine, etc.). Only six studies analyzed the influence of potential confounders [20][21][22]33,40,41 . Thus, all other studies have a "high" or "uncertain" risk of bias, once the influence of other risk factors on the result obtained was not reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some authors used the definition proposed by Hägglund et al 42 , which defines a musculoskeletal injury when three criteria are related to injuries: association with athletic participation; necessity for health care; and time-loss with restrict participation for at least 24 hours. However, some authors included only severe injuries (with time-loss larger than three weeks) 11 or any injury 19,20,22,24,27,40,41 . Third, statistical analysis based on indicators of diagnostic accuracy or simple calculation of OR limits the interpretation 41 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dynamic Movement Assessment and Functional Movement Screening for injury prediction: a systematic review

Bunn

Silva

2018

Fisioter. Pesqui.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic Movement AssessmentTM (DMATM) and Functional Movement ScreeningTM (FMSTM) are tools to predict the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in individuals who practice physical activities. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the association of DMATM and FMSTM with the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, in different physical activities, categorizing by analysis. A research without language or time filters was carried out in November 2016 in MEDLINE, Google Scholar, SciELO, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and BVS databases using the keywords: “injury prediction”, “injury risk”, “sensitivity”, “specificity”, “functional movement screening”, and “dynamic movement assessment”. Prospective studies that analyzed the association between DMATM and FMSTM with the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in physical activities were included. The data extracted from the studies were: participant’s profile, sample size, injury’s classification criteria, follow-up time, and the results presented, subdivided by the type of statistical analysis. The risk of bias was performed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. No study with DMATM was found. A total of 20 FMSTM studies analyzing one or more of the following indicators were included: diagnostic accuracy (PPV, NPV and AUC), odds ratios (OR) or relative risk (RR). FMSTM showed a sensitivity=12 to 99%; specificity=38 to 97%; PPV=25 to 91%; NPV=28 to 85%; AUC=0.42 to 0.68; OR=0.53 to 54.5; and RR=0.16-5.44. The FMSTM has proven to be a predictor of musculoskeletal injuries. However, due to methodological limitations, its indiscriminate usage should be avoided.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dynamic Movement Assessment and Functional Movement Screening for injury prediction: a systematic review

Bunn

Silva

2018

Fisioter. Pesqui.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many researchers have therefore proposed that a history of previous injuries is a risk factor for future damage (4). A large body of literature has been dedicated to the FMS test as an effective tool for predicting injuries in athletes before participating in competitions in different sports fields (5,6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships of the Functional Movement Screen Test with the Proprioception of the Core and Anthropometric Characteristics in Female Athletes

Zibaie

Sheikhhoseini

Babakhani

2019

J Clin Res Paramed Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The proprioception of the lumbo-pelvic region has been claimed to be a factor potentially affecting the results of the functional movement screen (FMS) test, although no evidence has been yet published for this claim. Objectives: The present study was conducted to investigate the relationships of the FMS test with the proprioception of the core and anthropometric characteristics in athletes. Methods: The present cross-sectional study included 58 female athletes in different fields of sports with a mean age of 21.12 ± 7.1 years, a weight of 59.25 ± 10.2 kg and a height of 164.41 ± 6.2 cm. The FMS test was used to evaluate the functional motor integrity, the six-channel gyroscope (Danesh Salar Iranian Co.) to examine the position sense of the core region, including the hip, pelvis and lower back, and tapes and digital scales to assess anthropometric features. The Spearman and Pearson correlation tests were used to analyse the data. All the statistical analyses were performed in SPSS-24 with a significance level of 95% (P < 0.05). Results: The results suggested no significant correlations among the outcomes obtained from proprioception, anthropometric dimensions and the FMS test results (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The total scores of the FMS test appear not to be significantly associated with the outcomes obtained from the position sensation of the lumbo-pelvic region and anthropometric dimensions.

show abstract

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Functional Movement Screen in the Prediction of Injury in Adolescent Cricket Pace Bowlers: An Observational Study

Abstract: Preseason observed total FMS score is a poor predictor of in-season injury among adolescent pace bowlers. Further research should be conducted to determine if a specific FMS test will be a more valid predictor of injury.

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Dynamic Movement Assessment and Functional Movement Screening for injury prediction: a systematic review

Dynamic Movement Assessment and Functional Movement Screening for injury prediction: a systematic review

Relationships of the Functional Movement Screen Test with the Proprioception of the Core and Anthropometric Characteristics in Female Athletes

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About