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

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.