Evaluation of the Functional Movement Screen as an Injury Prediction Tool Among Active Adult Populations

Author:

Dorrel Bryan S.1,Long Terry1,Shaffer Scott2,Myer Gregory D.3

Affiliation:

1. Northwest Missouri State University, School of Health Science, Maryville, Missouri

2. Academy of Health Sciences, Graduate School, US Army Baylor Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy, Fort Sam Houston, Texas

3. Division of Sports Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio

Abstract

Context: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is an assessment tool for quality of human movement. Research reports a significant difference between FMS scores of subjects who later experienced injury and those who remain uninjured. Objective: To systematically review literature related to predictive validity of the FMS. From the aggregated data, a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prognostic accuracy of the FMS. Data Sources: PubMed, Ebscohost, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Review databases were searched between 1998 and February 20, 2014. Study Selection: Identified studies were reviewed in full detail to validate inclusion criteria. Seven of the 11 identified studies were included. Articles were reviewed for inclusion criteria, then bias assessment and critical analysis were conducted. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Data Extraction: Extracted data included the following: study type, methodology, study subjects, number of subjects, injury classification definition, FMS cut score, sensitivity, specificity, odds ratios, likelihood ratios (LR), predictive values, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, and area under the curve (AUC). Results: Overall bias for the included 7 studies was low with respect to patient selection. Quality assessment scored 1 study 5 of a possible 7, 2 studies were scored 3 of 7, and 4 studies were scored 2 of 7. The meta-analysis indicated the FMS was more specific (85.7%) than sensitive (24.7%), with a positive predictive value of 42.8% and a negative predictive value of 72.5%. The area under the curve was 0.587 (LR+, 1.7; LR–, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.6-6.1) and the effect size was 0.68. Conclusion: Based on analysis of the current literature, findings do not support the predictive validity of the FMS. Methodological and statistical limitations identified threaten the ability of the research to determine the predictive validity of FMS.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Reference35 articles.

Cited by 100 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3