The Functional Movement Screen as an injury prediction tool for German physical education and exercise science students: a prospective cohort-study

IF 0.4 Q4 REHABILITATION
Physioscience Pub Date : 2021-06-24 DOI:10.1055/a-1307-1459
S. Schweda, Daniel Leyhr, I. Krauss
{"title":"The Functional Movement Screen as an injury prediction tool for German physical education and exercise science students: a prospective cohort-study","authors":"S. Schweda, Daniel Leyhr, I. Krauss","doi":"10.1055/a-1307-1459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Several studies have evaluated the applicability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) as a screening tool for injury prediction. However, only few studies investigate gender differences for FMS as a screening tool for female and male college students. Objective To evaluate gender differences in FMS single items and the overall score. In addition, the applicability of FMS as a diagnostic tool for injury prevention of German exercise students will be investigated. Method N = 99 college students performed an FMS at the beginning of the semester. Injuries were recorded for the entire term. Gender differences of FMS single items were assessed using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test. Differences in injury prediction were calculated using logistic regression. If the model was statistically significant, diagnostic accuracy was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC). The Youden index was used to identify a cut-off score. 2 × 2 contingency tables, sensitivity and specifity, positive/negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios were assessed. Results There were significant gender differences for Deep Squat, Shoulder Mobility, Trunk Stability Push Up, and Active Straight Leg Raise. The logistic regression showed that the composite score was statistically significant in clarifying the model for females (p = 0.005, RN 2 = 0.14), but not for males (p = 0.18, RN 2 = 0.04). The ROC curve indicated acceptable injury prediction in females (AUC: 0.66, p = 0.02) and poor injury prediction in males (AUC: 0.40, p = 0.19). The cut-off score of ≤ 16 for females resulted in a sensitivity of 63 % and specificity of 54 %. No cut-off score was calculated for males. Conclusion Females performed better on flexibility items, while males scored higher on strength exercises. Results of the study indicate low predictive accuracy. Therefore, no solid recommendation can be made for the use of the FMS as an injury screening tool for either female or male German exercise science students.","PeriodicalId":41765,"journal":{"name":"Physioscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physioscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1307-1459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background Several studies have evaluated the applicability of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) as a screening tool for injury prediction. However, only few studies investigate gender differences for FMS as a screening tool for female and male college students. Objective To evaluate gender differences in FMS single items and the overall score. In addition, the applicability of FMS as a diagnostic tool for injury prevention of German exercise students will be investigated. Method N = 99 college students performed an FMS at the beginning of the semester. Injuries were recorded for the entire term. Gender differences of FMS single items were assessed using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test. Differences in injury prediction were calculated using logistic regression. If the model was statistically significant, diagnostic accuracy was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC). The Youden index was used to identify a cut-off score. 2 × 2 contingency tables, sensitivity and specifity, positive/negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios were assessed. Results There were significant gender differences for Deep Squat, Shoulder Mobility, Trunk Stability Push Up, and Active Straight Leg Raise. The logistic regression showed that the composite score was statistically significant in clarifying the model for females (p = 0.005, RN 2 = 0.14), but not for males (p = 0.18, RN 2 = 0.04). The ROC curve indicated acceptable injury prediction in females (AUC: 0.66, p = 0.02) and poor injury prediction in males (AUC: 0.40, p = 0.19). The cut-off score of ≤ 16 for females resulted in a sensitivity of 63 % and specificity of 54 %. No cut-off score was calculated for males. Conclusion Females performed better on flexibility items, while males scored higher on strength exercises. Results of the study indicate low predictive accuracy. Therefore, no solid recommendation can be made for the use of the FMS as an injury screening tool for either female or male German exercise science students.
功能运动屏幕作为德国体育教育和运动科学学生损伤预测工具:一项前瞻性队列研究
摘要背景 几项研究评估了功能运动屏幕(FMS)作为损伤预测筛查工具的适用性。然而,很少有研究调查FMS作为男女大学生筛查工具的性别差异。客观的 评估FMS单项和总分的性别差异。此外,还将调查FMS作为德国运动学生损伤预防诊断工具的适用性。方法 N = 99名大学生在学期初进行了FMS。整个学期都有受伤记录。FMS单项的性别差异采用Mann-Whitney-U-检验进行评估。使用逻辑回归计算损伤预测的差异。如果模型具有统计学意义,则使用受试者工作特性(ROC)曲线和曲线下面积(AUC)计算诊断准确性。尤登指数被用来确定一个临界分数。2. × 评估了2个列联表、敏感性和特异性、阳性/阴性预测值和似然比。后果 深蹲、肩部活动性、躯干稳定性俯卧撑和主动直腿抬高存在显著的性别差异。逻辑回归显示,复合得分在阐明女性模型方面具有统计学意义(p = 0.005,RN 2 = 0.14),但男性没有(p = 0.18,RN 2 = 0.04)。ROC曲线表明女性可接受的损伤预测(AUC:0.66,p = 0.02)和男性损伤预测不佳(AUC:0.40,p = 0.19) 女性16例,敏感度为63 % 特异性为54 %. 没有计算男性的截止分数。结论 女性在柔韧性项目上表现更好,而男性在力量训练上得分更高。研究结果表明预测准确率较低。因此,无论是女性还是男性德国运动科学学生,都不能推荐使用FMS作为损伤筛查工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Physioscience
Physioscience REHABILITATION-
自引率
50.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信