比较腰背痛患者与健康人的功能性运动筛查™得分:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 1.6 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2024-07-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.26603/001c.120199
Khalid M Alkhathami, Bijad Alqahtani
{"title":"比较腰背痛患者与健康人的功能性运动筛查™得分:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Khalid M Alkhathami, Bijad Alqahtani","doi":"10.26603/001c.120199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) is widely used to assess functional movement patterns and illuminate movement dysfunctions that may have a role in injury risk. However, the association between FMS™ scores and LBP remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine functional movement scores among patients with low back pain (LBP) and healthy subjects with no LBP and review the validity of the FMS™ tool for screening functional movement among LBP patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review and meta-analysis included papers assessing functional movement among adult patients with LBP using the FMS™ through a literature review of five databases. The search strategy focused used relevant keywords: Functional movement screen AND low back pain. The review included all papers assessing functional movement among LBP adult patients (>18 years old) using the FMS™ published between 2003 to 2023. The risk of bias in the involved studies was evaluated using the updated Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager software, version 5.4. The meta-analysis included the total FMS™ score and the scores of the seven FMS™ movement patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies were included in this systematic review were considered to have low to unclear risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the LBP group had a significantly lower total FMS™ score than the control group by 1.81 points (95% CI (-3.02, -0.59), p= 0.004). Patients with LBP had a significantly lower score than the control group regarding FMS™ movement patterns, the deep squat (p <0.01), the hurdle step (p <0.01), the inline lunge (P value <0.01), the active straight leg raise (p <0.01), the trunk stability push-up (p=0.02), and the rotational stability screens (p <0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lower scores on the FMS™ are associated with impaired functional movement. Identifying the specific functional movement impairments linked to LBP can assist in the creation of personalized treatment plans and interventions. Further research is needed to assess the association of cofounders, such as age, gender, and body mass index, with the FMS™ score among LBP patients and controls.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>1.</p>","PeriodicalId":47892,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Scores of The Functional Movement Screen™ in Individuals with Low Back Pain versus Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Khalid M Alkhathami, Bijad Alqahtani\",\"doi\":\"10.26603/001c.120199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) is widely used to assess functional movement patterns and illuminate movement dysfunctions that may have a role in injury risk. However, the association between FMS™ scores and LBP remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine functional movement scores among patients with low back pain (LBP) and healthy subjects with no LBP and review the validity of the FMS™ tool for screening functional movement among LBP patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review and meta-analysis included papers assessing functional movement among adult patients with LBP using the FMS™ through a literature review of five databases. The search strategy focused used relevant keywords: Functional movement screen AND low back pain. The review included all papers assessing functional movement among LBP adult patients (>18 years old) using the FMS™ published between 2003 to 2023. The risk of bias in the involved studies was evaluated using the updated Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager software, version 5.4. The meta-analysis included the total FMS™ score and the scores of the seven FMS™ movement patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies were included in this systematic review were considered to have low to unclear risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the LBP group had a significantly lower total FMS™ score than the control group by 1.81 points (95% CI (-3.02, -0.59), p= 0.004). Patients with LBP had a significantly lower score than the control group regarding FMS™ movement patterns, the deep squat (p <0.01), the hurdle step (p <0.01), the inline lunge (P value <0.01), the active straight leg raise (p <0.01), the trunk stability push-up (p=0.02), and the rotational stability screens (p <0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lower scores on the FMS™ are associated with impaired functional movement. Identifying the specific functional movement impairments linked to LBP can assist in the creation of personalized treatment plans and interventions. Further research is needed to assess the association of cofounders, such as age, gender, and body mass index, with the FMS™ score among LBP patients and controls.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>1.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221333/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.120199\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.120199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:功能性运动筛查™(FMS™)被广泛用于评估功能性运动模式,并揭示可能与受伤风险有关的运动功能障碍。然而,FMS™评分与枸杞痛之间的关系仍不确定:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在研究腰背痛(LBP)患者和无腰背痛的健康受试者的功能性运动评分,并审查 FMS™ 工具在筛查腰背痛患者功能性运动方面的有效性:该系统性综述和荟萃分析通过对五个数据库的文献综述,纳入了使用 FMS™ 评估成年腰背痛患者功能运动的论文。检索策略使用了相关关键词:功能性运动筛查和腰背痛。综述包括 2003 年至 2023 年间发表的所有使用 FMS™ 评估腰背痛成年患者(大于 18 岁)功能运动情况的论文。使用最新的 Cochrane ROB 2 工具评估了相关研究的偏倚风险。统计分析使用 5.4 版的 Review Manager 软件进行。荟萃分析包括 FMS™ 总分和七种 FMS™ 运动模式的得分:本系统综述共纳入了七项研究,这些研究的偏倚风险较低或不明确。荟萃分析显示,LBP 组的 FMS™ 总分明显低于对照组 1.81 分(95% CI (-3.02, -0.59),P= 0.004)。在 FMS™ 运动模式方面,腰椎间盘突出症患者的深蹲得分明显低于对照组(P= 0.004):FMS™得分较低与功能性运动受损有关。确定与枸杞痛相关的特定功能性运动障碍有助于制定个性化的治疗计划和干预措施。需要进一步开展研究,以评估枸杞痛患者和对照组中年龄、性别和体重指数等共因子与 FMS™ 评分的关联:1.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Scores of The Functional Movement Screen™ in Individuals with Low Back Pain versus Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) is widely used to assess functional movement patterns and illuminate movement dysfunctions that may have a role in injury risk. However, the association between FMS™ scores and LBP remains uncertain.

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine functional movement scores among patients with low back pain (LBP) and healthy subjects with no LBP and review the validity of the FMS™ tool for screening functional movement among LBP patients.

Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis included papers assessing functional movement among adult patients with LBP using the FMS™ through a literature review of five databases. The search strategy focused used relevant keywords: Functional movement screen AND low back pain. The review included all papers assessing functional movement among LBP adult patients (>18 years old) using the FMS™ published between 2003 to 2023. The risk of bias in the involved studies was evaluated using the updated Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager software, version 5.4. The meta-analysis included the total FMS™ score and the scores of the seven FMS™ movement patterns.

Results: Seven studies were included in this systematic review were considered to have low to unclear risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the LBP group had a significantly lower total FMS™ score than the control group by 1.81 points (95% CI (-3.02, -0.59), p= 0.004). Patients with LBP had a significantly lower score than the control group regarding FMS™ movement patterns, the deep squat (p <0.01), the hurdle step (p <0.01), the inline lunge (P value <0.01), the active straight leg raise (p <0.01), the trunk stability push-up (p=0.02), and the rotational stability screens (p <0.01).

Conclusion: Lower scores on the FMS™ are associated with impaired functional movement. Identifying the specific functional movement impairments linked to LBP can assist in the creation of personalized treatment plans and interventions. Further research is needed to assess the association of cofounders, such as age, gender, and body mass index, with the FMS™ score among LBP patients and controls.

Level of evidence: 1.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
124
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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