Key result
Functional Movement Screen fails to accurately predict injuries in exercise science students.
Why the study?
Few studies have investigated gender differences for the Functional Movement Screen as an injury prediction tool in college students.
Does the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) predict injuries in German physical education and exercise science students?
Cohort (n=99)
Does the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) predict injuries in German physical education and exercise science students?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.66 (females), AUC 0.40 (males)
p-value: p=0.02 (females), 0.19 (males)
The Functional Movement Screen has low predictive accuracy for injuries in exercise science students and cannot be solidly recommended as a screening tool.
FMS should not guide injury screening in exercise science students; leaves open validation of superior predictors in prospective cohorts.
Background Several studies have evaluated the applicability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) as a screening tool for injury prediction. However, only few studies investigate gender differences for FMS as a screening tool for female and male college students. Objective To evaluate gender differences in FMS single items and the overall score. In addition, the applicability of FMS as a diagnostic tool for injury prevention of German exercise students will be investigated. Method N = 99 college students performed an FMS at the beginning of the semester. Injuries were recorded for the entire term. Gender differences of FMS single items were assessed using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test. Differences in injury prediction were calculated using logistic regression. If the model was statistically significant, diagnostic accuracy was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC). The Youden index was used to identify a cut-off score. 2 × 2 contingency tables, sensitivity and specifity, positive/negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios were assessed. Results There were significant gender differences for Deep Squat, Shoulder Mobility, Trunk Stability Push Up, and Active Straight Leg Raise. The logistic regression showed that the composite score was statistically significant in clarifying the model for females (p = 0.005, RN 2 = 0.14), but not for males (p = 0.18, RN 2 = 0.04). The ROC curve indicated acceptable injury prediction in females (AUC: 0.66, p = 0.02) and poor injury prediction in males (AUC: 0.40, p = 0.19). The cut-off score of ≤ 16 for females resulted in a sensitivity of 63 % and specificity of 54 %. No cut-off score was calculated for males. Conclusion Females performed better on flexibility items, while males scored higher on strength exercises. Results of the study indicate low predictive accuracy. Therefore, no solid recommendation can be made for the use of the FMS as an injury screening tool for either female or male German exercise science students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schweda et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Injury prediction (n=99). Functional Movement Screen (FMS) was evaluated on Injury prediction (AUC 0.66 (females), AUC 0.40 (males), p=0.02 (females), 0.19 (males)). The Functional Movement Screen demonstrated low predictive accuracy for injuries in exercise science students, yielding an AUC of 0.66 (p=0.02) in females and 0.40 (p=0.19) in males.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: