ArticleHeliyon2024
The application of modified functional movement screen as predictor of training injury in athletes.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-01-27Concerns/Issues about Human Subject Welfare · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is widely recognized by clinicians and trainers as a valuable tool for the prediction and prevention of training injuries in sports population. However, some studies suggested that FMS may not fully meet the needs of professional athletes. To address this, the Modified Functional Movement Screen (MFMS) has been specifically developed for athletes. Methods: A total of 527 male athletes in active service without prior training injuries 18.5 ± 1.2 years old) underwent the MFMS test, and their training injuries were monitored during a 2-year follow-up period. The ability of the MFMS to predict the risk of training injury was evaluated based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the total MFMS score. Binary logistic analysis was employed to examine the correlation between the 10 MFMS tests and the risk of training injury. Results: The injured group of athletes had significantly lower total MFMS scores compared to the healthy group (P < 0.001). The total MFMS score demonstrated a strong predictive ability for training injury risk, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.97 (P < 0.001). The calculated cut-off point was set at 22, yielding an odds ratio of 25.63, sensitivity of 0.94, and specificity of 0.88. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed a negative correlation between 6 MFMS tests and the risk of training injury. Conclusion: The MFMS can effectively predict the risk of training injuries. Athletes with a total MFMS score below 22 are more susceptible to experiencing injuries during training.
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.