SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
Evaluation of both overall and individual FMS components results in male and female groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to identify gender-based differences of both overall Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and individual FMS components in male and female groups. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed across three major databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) to ensure rigorous inclusion criteria. Data collection took place from 2016 to 2024, and 1,235 articles were identified. After scrutiny, 20 met the requirements for inclusion. The Review Manager 5.4 and CMAv4 software were utilized to examine the FMS score results to ensure rigorous statistical evaluation. Data were synthesized using a random-effect model, with the Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) used to calculate effect size. Results: The overall FMS score showed that the functional movement capacities of males and females differed; females performed higher (MD = -0.46, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.08, P = 0.02) compared to males. A meta-analysis of 7 individual FMS components was conducted to assess the importance for both sexes. However, tests on specific areas showed significant gender differences: females outperformed males in shoulder mobility (p < 0.00001), active straight leg raise (p < 0.00001), hurdle step (p = 0.01), and rotary stability (p = 0.002). In contrast, males demonstrated significantly greater trunk stability (p < 0.0001) compared to females. Despite this, the in-line lunge (p = 0.42) and deep squat (p = 0.20) demonstrated no significant difference across gender. Conclusion: These outcomes highlight significant gender-based differences that can help identify weaknesses and strengths, which may assist coaches, trainers, and individuals in recommending gender-specific exercises and training programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=1043946, identifier CRD420251043946.
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.