The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations

Charise Conkin, Catherine Reece, Rob Marc Orr, Ben Schram, Benjamin Hinton, Rodney R Pope, Kayla Ross, James Dawes

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterResearchpeer-review

23 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
To (1) critically review research examining the relationship between movement screens and injury, (2) to synthesize their findings, and (3) to explore any emerging differences in the use of movement screens between tactical and athletic populations on movement screens and their ability to predict injury.

METHODS:
Key databases (CINAHL, OVID, PubMed and SportsDiscus) were searched in September 2017 using variations on the search terms: movement screen(ing), FMS, SFMA and injur*. An inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and the remaining studies appraised using the Downs and Blacks tool and Kennelly’s grading system. Key data was then extracted from the articles and tabulated.

RESULTS
This review included 8 tactical (mean age=22.4± 2.7) and 10 athletic (mean age= 21.4±2.3). With a methodological quality ranged from 14.29% to 58.93%. Within the studies the FMS was the most popular screening tool (12 of 18 studies), other studies included: Basketball Mobility Test (BMT), Y balance test, Physical Fitness Test (PFT), Movement Competency Screen (MCS) and Physical Readiness Test (PRT). Combined results showed a mean FMS score of 13.2-16.6 has been reported to predict injury. The FMS was reported to not have enough discriminative power or significance to predict injury in 6 of 18 studies. Components of the PFT, MCS, PRT also found significant relationships to predict injury.

CONCLUSION:
The clinical use of movement screens to predict injury should be used with caution in both tactical and athletic populations. The majority of the studies evaluated were either of poor quality or unable to provide a strong significant finding. Movement screens provide insight into quality of movement and perhaps future directions for conditioning programs.

Key Words: FMS, injury, prediction, movement screen(ing), tactical, athletic.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 7 Apr 2018
Event2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting - University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, United States
Duration: 6 Apr 20187 Apr 2018
http://www.rmacsm.org/annualmeeting.html

Conference

Conference2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting
Abbreviated title2018 RMACSM Annual Meeting
CountryUnited States
CityColorado Springs
Period6/04/187/04/18
Internet address

Fingerprint

Athletic Injuries
Wounds and Injuries
Sports
Population
Physical Fitness
Basketball
PubMed
Databases
Research

Cite this

Conkin, C., Reece, C., Orr, R. M., Schram, B., Hinton, B., Pope, R. R., ... Dawes, J. (2018). The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations. Poster session presented at 2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, Colorado Springs, United States.
Conkin, Charise ; Reece, Catherine ; Orr, Rob Marc ; Schram, Ben ; Hinton, Benjamin ; Pope, Rodney R ; Ross, Kayla ; Dawes, James. / The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations. Poster session presented at 2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, Colorado Springs, United States.
@conference{93e1ed3aafa74e4f928372de490e119f,
title = "The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To (1) critically review research examining the relationship between movement screens and injury, (2) to synthesize their findings, and (3) to explore any emerging differences in the use of movement screens between tactical and athletic populations on movement screens and their ability to predict injury. METHODS: Key databases (CINAHL, OVID, PubMed and SportsDiscus) were searched in September 2017 using variations on the search terms: movement screen(ing), FMS, SFMA and injur*. An inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and the remaining studies appraised using the Downs and Blacks tool and Kennelly’s grading system. Key data was then extracted from the articles and tabulated. RESULTS This review included 8 tactical (mean age=22.4± 2.7) and 10 athletic (mean age= 21.4±2.3). With a methodological quality ranged from 14.29{\%} to 58.93{\%}. Within the studies the FMS was the most popular screening tool (12 of 18 studies), other studies included: Basketball Mobility Test (BMT), Y balance test, Physical Fitness Test (PFT), Movement Competency Screen (MCS) and Physical Readiness Test (PRT). Combined results showed a mean FMS score of 13.2-16.6 has been reported to predict injury. The FMS was reported to not have enough discriminative power or significance to predict injury in 6 of 18 studies. Components of the PFT, MCS, PRT also found significant relationships to predict injury. CONCLUSION: The clinical use of movement screens to predict injury should be used with caution in both tactical and athletic populations. The majority of the studies evaluated were either of poor quality or unable to provide a strong significant finding. Movement screens provide insight into quality of movement and perhaps future directions for conditioning programs. Key Words: FMS, injury, prediction, movement screen(ing), tactical, athletic.",
author = "Charise Conkin and Catherine Reece and Orr, {Rob Marc} and Ben Schram and Benjamin Hinton and Pope, {Rodney R} and Kayla Ross and James Dawes",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "7",
language = "English",
note = "2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, 2018 RMACSM Annual Meeting ; Conference date: 06-04-2018 Through 07-04-2018",
url = "http://www.rmacsm.org/annualmeeting.html",

}

Conkin, C, Reece, C, Orr, RM, Schram, B, Hinton, B, Pope, RR, Ross, K & Dawes, J 2018, 'The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations' 2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, Colorado Springs, United States, 6/04/18 - 7/04/18, .

The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations. / Conkin, Charise; Reece, Catherine; Orr, Rob Marc; Schram, Ben; Hinton, Benjamin; Pope, Rodney R; Ross, Kayla ; Dawes, James.

2018. Poster session presented at 2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, Colorado Springs, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterResearchpeer-review

TY - CONF

T1 - The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations

AU - Conkin, Charise

AU - Reece, Catherine

AU - Orr, Rob Marc

AU - Schram, Ben

AU - Hinton, Benjamin

AU - Pope, Rodney R

AU - Ross, Kayla

AU - Dawes, James

PY - 2018/4/7

Y1 - 2018/4/7

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To (1) critically review research examining the relationship between movement screens and injury, (2) to synthesize their findings, and (3) to explore any emerging differences in the use of movement screens between tactical and athletic populations on movement screens and their ability to predict injury. METHODS: Key databases (CINAHL, OVID, PubMed and SportsDiscus) were searched in September 2017 using variations on the search terms: movement screen(ing), FMS, SFMA and injur*. An inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and the remaining studies appraised using the Downs and Blacks tool and Kennelly’s grading system. Key data was then extracted from the articles and tabulated. RESULTS This review included 8 tactical (mean age=22.4± 2.7) and 10 athletic (mean age= 21.4±2.3). With a methodological quality ranged from 14.29% to 58.93%. Within the studies the FMS was the most popular screening tool (12 of 18 studies), other studies included: Basketball Mobility Test (BMT), Y balance test, Physical Fitness Test (PFT), Movement Competency Screen (MCS) and Physical Readiness Test (PRT). Combined results showed a mean FMS score of 13.2-16.6 has been reported to predict injury. The FMS was reported to not have enough discriminative power or significance to predict injury in 6 of 18 studies. Components of the PFT, MCS, PRT also found significant relationships to predict injury. CONCLUSION: The clinical use of movement screens to predict injury should be used with caution in both tactical and athletic populations. The majority of the studies evaluated were either of poor quality or unable to provide a strong significant finding. Movement screens provide insight into quality of movement and perhaps future directions for conditioning programs. Key Words: FMS, injury, prediction, movement screen(ing), tactical, athletic.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To (1) critically review research examining the relationship between movement screens and injury, (2) to synthesize their findings, and (3) to explore any emerging differences in the use of movement screens between tactical and athletic populations on movement screens and their ability to predict injury. METHODS: Key databases (CINAHL, OVID, PubMed and SportsDiscus) were searched in September 2017 using variations on the search terms: movement screen(ing), FMS, SFMA and injur*. An inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and the remaining studies appraised using the Downs and Blacks tool and Kennelly’s grading system. Key data was then extracted from the articles and tabulated. RESULTS This review included 8 tactical (mean age=22.4± 2.7) and 10 athletic (mean age= 21.4±2.3). With a methodological quality ranged from 14.29% to 58.93%. Within the studies the FMS was the most popular screening tool (12 of 18 studies), other studies included: Basketball Mobility Test (BMT), Y balance test, Physical Fitness Test (PFT), Movement Competency Screen (MCS) and Physical Readiness Test (PRT). Combined results showed a mean FMS score of 13.2-16.6 has been reported to predict injury. The FMS was reported to not have enough discriminative power or significance to predict injury in 6 of 18 studies. Components of the PFT, MCS, PRT also found significant relationships to predict injury. CONCLUSION: The clinical use of movement screens to predict injury should be used with caution in both tactical and athletic populations. The majority of the studies evaluated were either of poor quality or unable to provide a strong significant finding. Movement screens provide insight into quality of movement and perhaps future directions for conditioning programs. Key Words: FMS, injury, prediction, movement screen(ing), tactical, athletic.

M3 - Poster

ER -

Conkin C, Reece C, Orr RM, Schram B, Hinton B, Pope RR et al. The Ability of Movement Screening Tools to Predict Injury in Athletic and Tactical Populations. 2018. Poster session presented at 2018 Rocky Mountain American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, Colorado Springs, United States.