Collegiate Female Athletes and Their Odds of Injury Based on Functional Movement Screen Composite Scores
Main Article Content
Keywords
Women, Sports, FMS
Abstract
Introduction: Female collegiate athletes experience high rates of musculoskeletal injuries. One popular strategy for the reduction of musculoskeletal injury in collegiate athletes is the use of screening tools such as the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) to identify at risk athletes. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine if female collegiate athletes scoring ≤ 14 are at greater odds of injury than female collegiate athletes scoring >14.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and PubMed databases for articles published between January 2000 and April 2019. For inclusion, all studies were required to have used the FMS to predict injury, used FMS cut-off criterion of 14, and included a sample population consisting of female collegiate athletes. In addition, they needed to have identified the total number of participants above and below the FMS cut-off criterion (or provided an odds ratio).
Results: Two studies met the inclusion criteria. The odds of female collegiate athletes sustaining injury with an FMS cutoff score of ≤14 were four times higher compared to female athletes with composite FMS scores of >14 (OR=4.12, 95% CI=1.29-13.22, p=0.017).
Conclusions: Female collegiate athletes scoring ≤14 have a four times greater odds of injury than female collegiate athletes scoring >14 on the FMS; while not the sole indicator of injury risk, clinicians should seek to address the limitations in an athlete’s movement quality identified through the use of the FMS.
References
2. Simon JE, Docherty CL. The Impact of Previous Athletic Experience on Current Physical Fitness in Former Collegiate Athletes and Noncollegiate Athletes. Sports Health. 2017;9(5):462- 468.
3. Chorba RS, Chorba DJ, Bouillon LE, Overmyer CA, Landis JA. Use of a functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010;5(2):47-54.
4. Duke SR, Martin SE, Gaul CA. Preseason Functional Movement Screen Predicts Risk of Time- Loss Injury in Experienced Male Rugby Union Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(10):2740- 2747.
5. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can Serious Injury in Professional Football be Predicted by a Preseason Functional Movement Screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007;2(3):147-158.
6. Cook G. Movement : functional movement systems : screening, assessment, and corrective strategies. Aptos,
CA: On Target Publications; 2010.
7. Clay H, Mansell J, Tierney R. Association between Rowing Injuries and the Functional Movement Screen in Female Collegiate Division I Rowers. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11(3):345- 349.
8. Bushman TT, Grier TL, Canham-Chervak M, Anderson MK, North WJ, Jones BH. The Functional Movement Screen and Injury Risk: Association and Predictive Value in Active Men. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):297-304.
9. Bonazza NA, Smuin D, Onks CA, Silvis ML, Dhawan A. Reliability, Validity, and Injury
Predictive Value of the Functional Movement Screen: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):725-732.
10. Dorrel BS, Long T, Shaffer S, Myer GD. Evaluation of the Functional Movement Screen as an Injury Prediction Tool Among Active Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta- analysis. Sports Health. 2015;7(6):532-537.
11. Moran RW, Schneiders AG, Mason J, Sullivan SJ. Do Functional Movement Screen (FMS) composite scores predict subsequent injury? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(23):1661-1669.
12. KollockRO,LyonsM,SandersG,HaleD.Theeffectivenessofthefunctionalmovementscreen in determining injury risk in tactical occupations. Ind Health. 2018.
13. Moher D LA, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–1012.
14. SIGN 50: A guideline developer’s handbook. 2015; http://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/qrg50.pdf. Accessed October 2, 2017.
15. Harbour R, Lowe G, Twaddle S. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: the first 15 years (1993-2008). J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2011;41(2):163-168.
16. Sleith C. Methodology checklist 3: cohort studies. SIGN 50 2012; https://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes.html. Accessed August 24, 2018.
17. Sleith C. Notes on the use of Checklist 3 – Cohort Studies. SIGN 50 2012; https://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes.html. Accessed August 24, 2018.
18. Baker A, Young K, Potter J, Madan I. A review of grading systems for evidence-based guidelines produced by medical specialties. Clin Med (Lond). 2010;10(4):358-363.
19. Irving M, Eramudugolla R, Cherbuin N, Anstey KJ. A Critical Review of Grading Systems: Implications for Public Health Policy. Eval Health Prof. 2017;40(2):244-262.
20. Hopkins W. A scale for magnitudes for effect statistics. A New View of Statistics 2002; https://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html. Accessed August 23, 2018.
21. du Prel JB, Hommel G, Rohrig B, Blettner M. Confidence interval or p-value?: part 4 of a series
on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106(19):335-339.
22. Knapik JJ, Cosio-Lima LM, Reynolds KL, Shumway RS. Efficacy of functional movement screening for predicting injuries in coast guard cadets. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(5):1157-1162.
23. Dorrel B, Long T, Shaffer S, Myer GD. The Functional Movement Screen as a Predictor of Injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Athletes. J Athl Train. 2018;53(1):29-34.
24. Hägglund M, Waldén M, Ekstrand J. Previous injury as a risk factor for injury in elite football: a prospective study over two consecutive seasons. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(9):767.
25. Knapik JJ. The importance of physical fitness for injury prevention: part 1. J Spec Oper Med. 2015;15(1):123-127.
26. Twitchett E, Brodrick A, Nevill AM, Koutedakis Y, Angioi M, Wyon M. Does physical fitness affect injury occurrence and time loss due to injury in elite vocational ballet students? J Dance Med Sci. 2010;14(1):26-31.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright, 2025 by the authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.