ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2024
Comparing the Scores of The Functional Movement Screen™ in Individuals with Low Back Pain versus Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Static and Dynamic Motor Control in Active Young Adults: Associations with Oswestry Disability Index and Functional Movement Screen Asymmetries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) is widely used to assess functional movement patterns and illuminate movement dysfunctions that may have a role in injury risk. However, the association between FMS™ scores and LBP remains uncertain. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine functional movement scores among patients with low back pain (LBP) and healthy subjects with no LBP and review the validity of the FMS™ tool for screening functional movement among LBP patients. Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis included papers assessing functional movement among adult patients with LBP using the FMS™ through a literature review of five databases. The search strategy focused used relevant keywords: Functional movement screen AND low back pain. The review included all papers assessing functional movement among LBP adult patients (>18 years old) using the FMS™ published between 2003 to 2023. The risk of bias in the involved studies was evaluated using the updated Cochrane ROB 2 tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager software, version 5.4. The meta-analysis included the total FMS™ score and the scores of the seven FMS™ movement patterns. Results: Seven studies were included in this systematic review were considered to have low to unclear risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the LBP group had a significantly lower total FMS™ score than the control group by 1.81 points (95% CI (-3.02, -0.59), p= 0.004). Patients with LBP had a significantly lower score than the control group regarding FMS™ movement patterns, the deep squat (p <0.01), the hurdle step (p <0.01), the inline lunge (P value <0.01), the active straight leg raise (p <0.01), the trunk stability push-up (p=0.02), and the rotational stability screens (p <0.01). Conclusion: Lower scores on the FMS™ are associated with impaired functional movement. Identifying the specific functional movement impairments linked to LBP can assist in the creation of personalized treatment plans and interventions. Further research is needed to assess the association of cofounders, such as age, gender, and body mass index, with the FMS™ score among LBP patients and controls. Level of evidence: 1.
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.