Why the study?
Does the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) predict injury in professional basketball players?
Does the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) predict injury in professional basketball players?
The Functional Movement Screen is not predictive of injury in male professional basketball players.
FMS does not predict injury in pro basketball players; leaves open its clinical utility pending larger prospective studies.
Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is designed to detect deficits and asymmetries in the movement patterns of athletes that predispose them to injury. This tool has been found to be predictive of injury in select populations but has not been studied in professional basketball players. Our hypothesis was that injured players have lower FMS scores than noninjured players, and an FMS score of 14 is predictive of injury in this population. Methods: Preseason FMS testing was performed on all members of a single team in the National Basketball Association (NBA) over the course of four seasons. Injury was defined as a musculoskeletal condition that prevented an athlete from participating in practices or games for at least 1 wk. The data were retrospectively analyzed to determine the ability of the FMS to accurately predict future injury over the course of a season. Results: A total of 34 players met inclusion criteria, of whom 17 went on to sustain injuries and 17 did not. The mean FMS score for all subjects was 13.2 (minimum-maximum: 7-19; standard deviation=2.6). Injured players did not have a significantly lower mean FMS score than noninjured players (P=0.16). A positive correlation existed between the hurdle test and injury (P=0.004); however, no other subscore of the FMS correlated with injury. Conclusions: While the FMS is a valuable tool for identifying deficits and asymmetries of movement in some athletic activities, it is not predictive of injury in male professional basketball players.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azzam et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: