ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2022
Movement Competency Screen: Rethinking the Rating.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2022. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dancers are at high risk of musculoskeletal disorders. There has been a growing interest in the last few years in pre-season screening using tools to evaluate movement competency, among which is the Movement Competency Screen (MCS). It is currently scored using a categorical 3-level rating system, but this method does not seem to take into account the load level of movements. A 5-level scoring system could potentially alleviate this problem. Hypothesis/Purpose: For each scoring system, to investigate (1) the internal consistency, and (2) the association with transversus abdominis activation (TrA), hip muscle strength and with Functional Movement screen (FMS Study design: Secondary analyses of a prospective cohort study. Methods: One hundred and eighteen professional and preprofessional dancers evolving in ballet or contemporary dance were recruited. The MCS was performed and was scored according to the 3- and 5-level scoring systems. The key variables for movement competency that were considered for convergent validity were the activation ratio of the TrA evaluated with ultrasound imaging and hip strength assessed with a handheld dynamometer. Movement competency was also measured with the FMS Results: Internal consistency was higher for the 5-level scoring of the MCS items ($*$\alpha$*$=0.548) compared to the 3-level scoring system ($*$\alpha$*$=0.494). Multiple linear regressions showed that TrA activation, hip adductor strength, and FMS Conclusion: The 5-level scoring system showed better metrologic properties in terms of internal consistency and concurrent validity and therefore, should be preferred over the 3-level scoring system in future research. Level of Evidence: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36518829PMC9718700What 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.