APPRAISAL OF THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN IN FOOTBALL INJURY PREDICTION. Issue 4 (1st February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Grygorowicz, Monika; Michalowska, Martyna; Piontek, Tomasz
• Is Part Of: British journal of sports medicine. Volume 51:Issue 4(2017)
• Page Start: 325
• Page End: 326
• Publication Date: 2017-02-01
• Subjects: Injury; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; 617.1027
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097372.107
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-3674

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Functional Movement Screen (FMS) has been used in the prediction of football injuries. However, the discussion continues on how sensitive and specific the test is. Lately, systematic review [McCall et al. 2014] enrolling studies published up to September 2014 and clinical commentary [Wright et al. 2016] were published underlying caution prior to implementation of the FMS into clinical practice as an injury prediction tool. Thus, it seems necessary to up-date the debate. Objective: To provide up-to-date evidence-based summary of available evidence regarding the predictive value of FMS in football players. Design: Critically Appraised Topic. Setting: Amateur, collegiate Division I and II. Patients (or Participants): Male and female footballers. Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors): Medline, SPORTDiscuss/with/Full Text, Academic Search Complete, Nursing/Academic Edition, MasterFILE Premier databases were searched (on August 31st 2016) using "football", "soccer", "functional movement screen" keywords. Only prospective cohort studies published as full article in reviewed journals were included. Main Outcome Measurements: Between samples – injured vs. uninjured analysis, odd ratio (OR), likelihood ratio (LR), receiver operating curve (ROC). Results: Our search yielded 18 studies, after abstract revision 3 articles met the criteria. The first [Warren et al . 2015] did not confirm the validity of FMS in injury prediction (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.53–1.91). The second [ Schroeder et al . 2016 ] showed no difference between injured/uninjured players in FMS score (Z=−0.890, p=0.373), concluding FMS to be a poor predictor of injury in football players. The third [Mokha et al . 2016] found that asymmetry was a better predictor of injury than the composite FMS score. None of the studies used LR ratio or ROC curve analyses in statistical analysis. Conclusions: Caution is required when applying FMS in football injury prediction. It is necessary to conduct a well-designed prospective study with sufficient statistical analysis used for predictive parameters to justify the use of FMS test in injury prediction in football players.