ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Reliability and Association with Injury of Movement Screens: A Critical Review.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Neuromuscular Training Interventions on Jump-Landing Biomechanics and Implications for ACL Injuries in Youth Females: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Pooled it
- Injury Prevention Programmes Fail to Change Most Lower Limb Kinematics and Kinetics in Female Team Field and Court Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Predicting sport and occupational lower extremity injury risk through movement quality screening: a systematic review.British journal of sports medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Discriminative efficacy and comparative analysis of functional performance tests for lower-limb injuries in Chinese elite female basketball athletes: a pilot cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Assessing inter- and intra-rater reliability of movement scores and the effects of body-shape using a custom visualisation tool: an exploratory study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The Relationship between Functional Movement Quality and Speed, Agility, and Jump Performance in Elite Female Youth Football Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Factors associated with the Single Leg Squat test in female soccer players: a cross-sectional study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Motion Capture Data of a Movement Screen from 183 Athletes.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of the Functional Movement Screen for assessment of injury risk occurrence in football players.Biology of sport · 2022Article
- Functional Movement Screen Task Scores and Joint Range-of-motion: A Construct Validity Study.International journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Association Between Preseason Fitness Level and Risk of Injury or Illness in Male Elite Ice Hockey Players: A Prospective Cohort Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Test-retest reliability and agreement of lower-extremity kinematics captured in squatting and jumping preschool children using markerless motion capture technology.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Visual assessment of movement quality: a study on intra- and interrater reliability of a multi-segmental single leg squat test.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Item-level and Composite-level Interrater Reliability of Functional Movement Screen™ Scores Following Condensed Training in Novice Raters.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2021Article
- Exploring the Application of Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning for Identifying Movement Phenotypes During Deep Squat and Hurdle Step Movements.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Classifying Elite From Novice Athletes Using Simulated Wearable Sensor Data.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Reliability and validity of a novel Kinect-based software program for measuring a single leg squat.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Association of pre-season musculoskeletal screening and functional testing with sports injuries in elite female basketball players.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjective assessment of athletes' movement quality is widely used by physiotherapists and other applied practitioners within many sports. One of the beliefs driving this practice is that individuals who display 'poor' movement patterns are more likely to suffer an injury than those who do not. The aim of this review was to summarize the reliability of the movement screens currently documented within the scientific literature and explore the evidence surrounding their association with injury risk. Ten assessments with accompanying reliability data were identified through the literature search. Only two of these ten had any evidence directly related to injury risk. A number of methodological issues were present throughout the identified studies, including small sample sizes, lack of descriptive rater or participant information, ambiguous injury definitions, lack of exposure time reporting and risk of bias. These factors, combined with the paucity of research on this topic, make drawing conclusions as to the reliability and predictive ability of movement screens difficult. None of the movement screens that appear within the scientific literature currently have enough evidence to justify the tag of 'injury prediction tool'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.