Key result
Female athlete students demonstrated significantly higher total Functional Movement Screen scores compared to non-athlete students (17.63 vs 14.63, P=0.001), indicating better movement patterns.
Why the study?
Does athlete status correlate with improved Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores compared to non-athletes in female students?
Cross-Sectional (n=60)
No
Does athlete status correlate with improved Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores compared to non-athletes in female students?
Absolute Event Rate: 17.63% vs 14.63%
p-value: p=0.001
Female athletes demonstrate significantly better movement patterns as assessed by FMS scores compared to non-athletes, suggesting lower injury risk.
Associated with better movement patterns in female athletes; leaves open FMS predictive value for injury.
Objective: The present study aimed to compare the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores between athlete and non-athlete female students. Methods: Participants were 30 athlete female students (Mean±SD age, 23.36±3.10 years; Mean±SD height, 163.45±5.06 cm; Mean±SD weight, 57.40±6.43 kg) and 30 non-athlete female students (Mean±SD age, 25.00±2.36 years; Mean±SD height, 162.6±3.72; Mean±SD weight, 58.76±9.29 kg). They underwent FMS to assess their movement patterns. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the mean FMS scores between athletes and non-athletes. Data analysis was performed in SPSS v. 22 software at a significance level of P≥0.05. Results: The Mann–Whitney U test results showed a significant difference between the total mean FMS scores of female athletes and non-athletes (P=0.001). Considering a cut-off point of 14, Results revealed that 66% of athletes 40% of non-athletes had a FMS score <14, while 93.34% of athletes and 60% of non-athletes had a FMS score >14. Conclusion: FMS can help identify the difference in movement patterns between female athletes and non-athletes. Higher FMS scores of female athletes indicate that non-athletes have poor movement patterns which suggest that they are more likely to be injured if they engage in sports activities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Entezami et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=60). Athletic participation vs. No athletic participation (non-athletes) was evaluated on Total mean Functional Movement Screen (FMS) score (p=0.001). Female athlete students demonstrated significantly higher total Functional Movement Screen scores compared to non-athlete students (17.63 vs 14.63, P=0.001), indicating better movement patterns.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: