International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024
Comparing the Scores of The Functional Movement Screen™ in Individuals with Low Back Pain versus Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alkhathami Khalid M, Alqahtani Bijad
Аннотация
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.
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.