ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025
Exploring injury profiles in professional football: evidence from a five-year study and the role of the functional movement screen.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the injury profile of a professional football team over five consecutive seasons and assess the predictive value of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), offering insights to optimize injury prevention strategies in professional football.
designInjury data for 169 players between the 2016-2017 and 2020-2021 seasons were recorded, including the number of missed training sessions, injury severity, and injury types. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze these factors. The relationship between preseason FMS composite scores, asymmetry findings, and injury profiles was assessed using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and Logistic Regression Analysis.
resultsOver the five seasons, the injury incidence was 7.76 injuries per 1,000 training hours (95% CI: 7.59-7.93), 15.47 injuries per 1,000 match hours (95% CI: 15.23-15.71), and 8.9 injuries per 1,000 combined hours (95% CI: 8.72- 9.0). Injury data, including severity, type, and training or match absence, were meticulously recorded and analyzed. The study established an injury profile for players over five consecutive seasons but found that FMS was ineffective in predicting injuries, either within individual seasons or across the entire period. This suggests that the FMS may not be a reliable tool for forecasting injury risk in high-performance football.
conclusionThe injury frequency was 8.9 per 1,000 h of exposure, with 26% of injuries classified as severe, leading to over 28 missed training days per injury. Given that the FMS test battery alone did not reliably predict injury risk, we recommend its use in combination with other multifactorial screening methods to enhance the accuracy of injury risk assessment. Hamstring injuries were the most common, while goalkeepers primarily experienced back issues. Factors such as age, height, and body mass may influence injury risk. These findings underscore the need for multifaceted injury prevention programs that consider a wider range of risk factors beyond FMS scores, including age, height, and body mass, to effectively manage and reduce the risk of injuries in professional football. Additionally, these insights can assist technical staff in managing training absences and planning player availability more effectively.
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.