CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Sports injuries and preventionLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Moore, Emma, Chalmers, Samuel, Milanese, Steve, Fuller, Joel T.·2019·Sports Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s40279-019-01126-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Studies investigating the association between the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and sports injury risk have reported mixed results across a range of athlete populations. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to identify whether athlete age, sex, sport type, injury definition and mechanism contribute to the variable findings. Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic search was conducted in October 2018 using PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, EmBase and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they were peer reviewed and published in English language, included athletes from any competition level, performed the FMS at baseline to determine risk groups based on FMS composite score, asymmetry or pain, and prospectively observed injury incidence during training and competition. Study eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine odds ratio (OR), sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals. Sub-group analyses were based on athlete age, sex, sport type, injury definition, and injury mechanism. Results Twenty-nine studies were included in the FMS composite score meta-analysis. There was a smaller effect for junior (OR = 1.03 [0.67-1.59]; p = 0.881) compared to senior athletes (OR = 1.80 [1.17-2.78]; p = 0.008) and for male (OR = 1.79 [1.08-2.96]; p = 0.024) compared to female (OR = 1.92 [0.43-8.56]; p = 0.392) athletes. FMS composite scores were most likely to be associated with increased injury risk in rugby (OR = 5.92 [1.67-20.92]; p = 0.006), and to a lesser extent American football (OR = 4.41 [0.94-20.61]; p = 0.059) and ice hockey (OR = 3.70 [0.89-15.42]; p = 0.072), compared to other sports. Specificity values were higher than sensitivity values for FMS composite score. Eleven studies were included in the FMS asymmetry meta-analysis with insufficient study numbers to generate sport type subgroups. There was a larger effect for senior (OR = 1.78 [1.16-2.73]; p = 0.008) compared to junior athletes (OR = 1.21 [0.75-1.96]; p = 0.432). Sensitivity values were higher than specificity values for FMS asymmetry. For all FMS outcomes, there were minimal differences across injury definitions and mechanisms. Only four studies provided information about FMS pain and injury risk. There was a smaller effect for senior athletes (OR = 1.28 [0.33-4.96]; p = 0.723) compared to junior athletes (OR = 1.71 [1.16-2.50]; p = 0.006). Specificity values were higher than sensitivity values for FMS pain. Conclusion Athlete age, sex and sport type explained some of the variable findings of FMS prospective injury-risk studies. FMS composite scores and asymmetry were more useful for estimating injury risk in senior compared to junior athletes. Effect sizes tended to be small except for FMS composite scores in rugby, ice hockey and American football athletes. Protocol registration CRD42018092916.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-019-01126-5

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hopkins WG. Statistics used in observational studies. Sports Injury Research. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
  2. Balyi I, Hamilton A. Long-term athlete development: trainability in childhood and adolescence. Victoria: National Coaching Institute British Columbia & Advanced Training and Performance Ltd; 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 82

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moore, E., Chalmers, S., Milanese, S., & Fuller, J. T.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Moore, Emma
ORCID
Venue
Sports Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-05-18
Volume
49
Issue
9
Pages
1449-1463
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
DOI
10.1007/s40279-019-01126-5
OpenAlex
W2945045732
Semantic Scholar
eb9247a4d4cc7d56dd10ab77a4e004f437ce8c42
Cited by
73
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (acceptedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports injuries and prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Keywords
Functional Movement Screen, sports injury risk, injury prediction, movement asymmetry, injury mechanisms, athlete age, sex differences, rugby, American football, ice hockey, injury incidence, sensitivity and specificity, injury prevention screening, youth athletes, injury definitions, sport type differences
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Athletic Injuries, Football, Hockey, Humans, Movement, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Sports, Athletes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review