PainScience.com • Good advice for aches, pains & injuries
bibliography * The PainScience Bibliography contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers and others sources, like a specialized blog. This page is about a single scientific paper in the bibliography, Dorrel 2015.

Evaluation of the Functional Movement Screen as an Injury Prediction Tool Among Active Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

updated


Tags: injury, fibromyalgia, pain problems, chronic pain

PainSci summary of Dorrel 2015?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★☆☆?3-star ratings are for typical studies with no more (or less) than the usual common problems. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.

The first review of the predictive validity of The Functional Movement Screen (FMS), with a predictably and resoundingly negative result based on mediocre data from 7 studies: “Based on analysis of the current literature, findings do not support the predictive validity of the FMS. Methodological and statistical limitations identified threaten the ability of the research to determine the predictive validity of FMS.”

~ Paul Ingraham

original abstractAbstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.

CONTEXT: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is an assessment tool for quality of human movement. Research reports a significant difference between FMS scores of subjects who later experienced injury and those who remain uninjured.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature related to predictive validity of the FMS. From the aggregated data, a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prognostic accuracy of the FMS.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ebscohost, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Review databases were searched between 1998 and February 20, 2014.

STUDY SELECTION: Identified studies were reviewed in full detail to validate inclusion criteria. Seven of the 11 identified studies were included. Articles were reviewed for inclusion criteria, then bias assessment and critical analysis were conducted.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted data included the following: study type, methodology, study subjects, number of subjects, injury classification definition, FMS cut score, sensitivity, specificity, odds ratios, likelihood ratios (LR), predictive values, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, and area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS: Overall bias for the included 7 studies was low with respect to patient selection. Quality assessment scored 1 study 5 of a possible 7, 2 studies were scored 3 of 7, and 4 studies were scored 2 of 7. The meta-analysis indicated the FMS was more specific (85.7%) than sensitive (24.7%), with a positive predictive value of 42.8% and a negative predictive value of 72.5%. The area under the curve was 0.587 (LR+, 1.7; LR-, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.6-6.1) and the effect size was 0.68.

CONCLUSION: Based on analysis of the current literature, findings do not support the predictive validity of the FMS. Methodological and statistical limitations identified threaten the ability of the research to determine the predictive validity of FMS.

related content

These two articles on PainScience.com cite Dorrel 2015 as a source:

This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights: