Predicting sport and occupational lower
extremity injury risk through movement quality screening: A systematic review
Whittaker
JL, Booysen N, de la Motte S, Dennet L, Lewis CL, Wilson D, McKay C, Warner M,
Padua D, Emery CA, Stokes M. Br J Sports
Med. December 2016; [Epub ahead of print]
Take
Home Message: There is limited evidence that poor movement quality is
associated with a greater risk of lower extremity injury in athletic and
military/first-responder populations.
Prevention strategies to
reduce short- and long-term effects of lower extremity musculoskeletal (MSK)
conditions must include purposeful selection of risk factors and evaluation of
interventions to ensure effectiveness. While movement quality screenings offer several
advantages (e.g., mass administration, cost-effectiveness, adaptability) it is unclear
whether poor movement quality is associated with greater risk of lower
extremity injury. The authors executed a systematic review to identify whether
screening movement quality can predict lower extremity MSK injury in athletic
and military/first-responder populations. Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors performed
targeted keyword search in 5 databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Sport Discus,
and SCOPUS.
Inclusion criteria included prospective study design to identify a relationship
between a movement quality outcome (rating of functional compensation,
asymmetry, or impairment of movement) and lower extremity MSK injury (hip and
below). The authors identified 17 articles that met the inclusion criteria.
Based on the CEBM scale, most studies were classified as low-quality (level
4). Common risk factors reported included age, Functional Movement Screen (FMS) scores (total, ≤14, ≤ 12, hurdle step, in-line lunge, deep
squat), and Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores (total, ≤5). The authors concluded that evidence
supporting poor movement quality as a predictor of lower extremity MSK risk in
athletic and military/first-responder populations is low-level with
inconsistent methodological quality. These findings limit the use of movement
quality outcomes.
Successful prevention
strategies may reduce healthcare costs and time loss from activity due to
injury, particularly in young athletes. While movement screening tools are
tempting to utilize to drive prevention program implementation, particularly
from a cost- and time-efficiency perspective, the authors are clear that higher
quality evidence must be established in future work to ensure selection of
appropriate movement screening tools and to establish relationships with lower
extremity MSK risk. These screens can be effective for identifying those in
need of specific improvements to range of motion, strength, balance, etc.
However, clinicians should exercise caution when basing the decision to
implement a prevention program to reduce lower extremity MSK risk on
information gathered via mass administration of a movement screening tool in
athletes and military/first-responder personnel. Finally, prevention programs
must be prospectively evaluated for their ability to reduce injury risk in specific
populations in which they are implemented, effectively closing the evidence-based
feedback loop for the clinician.
Questions for Discussion: How are you generating
prevention programs in your setting? Are you incorporating movement quality, in
addition to other risk factors, to target individuals vulnerable to lower
extremity injury?
Written
By: Laura McDonald
Reviewed
by: Jeffrey Driban
Related
Posts:
Minding the Gap: Connecting Pre-season Screenings with Prospective Injury Data
RSS: Posts
Facebook 
Twitter
2 comments:
I think this systematic review raises many important points about screening tools from an Athletic Training standpoint. The battery of tests explored in the articles of this meta-analysis were not found to be particularly sensitive to injury, however it is hard to extrapolate this information to clinical practice. Although the article stated that studies were summarized in an appendix, this was not readily available in the PDF on PubMed. It is hard to appreciate what kind of athletes were included, and break down how sensitive the tests were for respective sports and gender. I think as clinicians it is important to consider what the movement screens are assessing and if the movements are even necessarily performed in the given sports. I think individualizing functional movement screens for sport would be an interesting concept for increased sensitivity to injury risk, though more difficult to perform as a mass screening option.
Hi Alexandra: The appendices are available on the journal's website. The sports included pro basketball, high school sports, military soldiers, firefighter trainees, NCAA D2 sports, junior hocket, NCAA D1 sports, track and field, pro American Football, coast guard cadets, marine corps officer trainees, elite youth soccer, and university athletes (incl rec).
Great points about individualized screening. Thanks!
Post a Comment
When you submit a comment please click 'Subscribe by Email" (just below the comments) or "Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)" (at the bottom of this page) if you would like to receive a notification when another comment has been submitted to this post.
Please note that if you are using Safari and have problems submitting comments you may need to go to your preferences (privacy tab) and stop blocking third party cookies. Sorry for any inconvenience this may pose.