↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Utility of FMS to understand injury incidence in sports: current perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
Title
Utility of FMS to understand injury incidence in sports: current perspectives
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s149139
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meghan Warren, Monica R Lininger, Nicole J Chimera, Craig A Smith

Abstract

The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular movement screen used by rehabilitation, as well as strength and conditioning, professionals. The FMS, like other movement screens, identifies movement dysfunction in those at risk of, but not currently experiencing, signs or symptoms of a musculoskeletal injury. Seven movement patterns comprise the FMS, which was designed to screen fundamental movement requiring a balance between stability and mobility. The 7 movement patterns are summed to a composite FMS score. For an instrument to have wide applicability and acceptability, there must be high levels of reliability, validity, and accuracy. The FMS is certainly a reliable tool, and can be consistently scored within and between raters. Although the FMS has high face and content validity, the criterion validity (discriminant and convergent) is low. Additionally, the FMS does not appear to be studying a single construct, challenging the use of the summed composite FMS score. The accuracy of the FMS in screening for injury is also suspect, with low sensitivity in almost all studies, although specificity is higher. Finally, within the FMS literature, the concepts of prediction and association are conflated, combined with flawed cohort studies, leading to questions about the efficacy of the FMS to screen for injury. Future research on the use of the FMS, either the composite score or the individual movement patterns, to screen for injury or injury risk in adequately powered, well-designed studies are required to determine if the FMS is appropriate for use as a movement screen.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 16%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Researcher 10 6%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 69 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 43 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 10%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 77 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2023.
All research outputs
#4,203,375
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#76
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,542
of 346,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.