ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2017
STATIC BALANCE MEASUREMENTS IN STABLE AND UNSTABLE CONDITIONS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE GROUPS OF YOUNG ADULTS ASSESSED BY THE FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN™ (FMS™).
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) has been the focus of recent research related to movement profiling and injury prediction. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the associations between physical performance tasks such as balance and the FMS™ screening system. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare measures of static balance in stable and unstable conditions between different groups divided by FMS™ scores. A secondary purpose was to discern if balance indices discriminate the groups divided by FMS™ scores. STUDY
designCross-sectional study.
methodsFifty-seven physically active subjects (25 men and 32 women; mean age of 22.9 ± 3.1 yrs) participated. The outcome was unilateral stance balance indices, composed by: Anteroposterior Index; Medial-lateral Index, and Overall Balance Index in stable and unstable conditions, as provided by the Biodex balance platform. Subjects were dichotomized into two groups, according to a FMS™ cut-off score of 14: FMS1 (score > 14) and FMS2 (score ≤ 14). The independent Students t-test was used to verify differences in balance indices between FMS1 and FMS2 groups. A discriminant analysis was applied in order to identify which of the balance indices would adequately discriminate the FMS™ groups.
resultsComparisons between FMS1 and FMS2 groups in the stable and unstable conditions demonstrated a higher unstable Anteroposterior index for FMS2 (p=0.017). No significant differences were found for other comparisons (p>0.05). The indices did not discriminate the FMS™ groups (
conclusionsThe balance indices adopted in this study were not useful as a parameter for identification and discrimination of healthy subjects assessed by the FMS™. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29158947PMC5675372What 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.