ArticleBiology of sport2022
Effectiveness of the Functional Movement Screen for assessment of injury risk occurrence in football players.
Article in Biology of sport, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Correlation Between Functional Movement Screen Scores and Self-Reported Injury History Among Competitive Male Padel Players: A Cross-Sectional Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Functional movement screen and asymmetries in female volleyball players across playing positions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
- Exploring injury profiles in professional football: evidence from a five-year study and the role of the functional movement screen.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- LLM-FMS: A fine-grained dataset for functional movement screen action quality assessment.PloS one · 2025Article
- Prediction of injury risk in Chinese mine rescuers based on single factors and different threshold combinations of FMS and YBT.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine whether the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) test carried out among young boys practising football training identifies previous injuries. Sixty-five boys aged 12-13 years, who had regularly practised football in an academy for at least 3 years, were recruited and divided into two groups: an injured group (IG), consisting of players who had experienced at least one injury in the past (n + 25, age 12.32 ± 0.48) and a non-injured group (non-IG), a control group, made up of athletes with no injuries to the musculoskeletal system (n = 40, age 12.25 ± 0.49). Seven FMS tests were used to rate the functional fitness level as a part of the FMS tool. Significant differences between the total scores of the FMS tests (p < 0.001, r = 0.54) were documented. Higher scores in the FMS test were observed in the control group (M = 16.58, SD = 2.04) than in the study group (M = 14.20, ± SD = 1.96). The FMS test is an effective diagnostic tool to identify previous injuries among young football players.
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.