Key result
The functional movement screen (FMS) is increasingly popular for predicting athletic injury, but its merits and potential limitations warrant closer analysis.
The functional movement screen is a popular tool for predicting athletic injury, but its merits and limitations warrant closer analysis.
FMS should not guide injury prevention decisions in athletes; leaves open its predictive validity pending rigorous validation studies.
Athletic injury and its sequelae remain a primary concern of sports professionals globally. As a result, screening athletes to predict injury is of great interest, especially if the screening/testing procedure is non-invasive, effective, and efficient. One such procedure of increasing popularity is the functional movement screen (FMS), which, in 2007, was reported to predict injury in American football players in a single season.1 The FMS attempts to identify fundamental movement patterns that simultaneously measure range of motion, stability, and balance1 and shows moderate evidence for acceptable reliability when deriving a composite score.2 The FMS attempts to take a comprehensive approach to assess human movement and encourages clinicians to look beyond impairments and isolated single joint motion and explore more comprehensive movement patterns representative of those used in daily activities and sport. Considering the growing popularity of the FMS both clinically and in research literature, its merits warrant closer analysis. A composite score of ≤14 on the FMS is commonly …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wright et al. (2016) conducted a review in Athletic injury. Functional movement screen (FMS) was evaluated. The functional movement screen (FMS) is increasingly popular for predicting athletic injury, but its merits and potential limitations warrant closer analysis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: