Asymmetry during preseason Functional Movement Screen testing is associated with injury during a junior Australian football season

Asymmetry during preseason Functional Movement Screen testing is associated with injury during a junior Australian football season
复制标题

DOI:
10.1016/j.jsams.2016.12.076
复制
发表时间:
2017-07-01
影响因子:
4
通讯作者:
Magarey, Mary
Magarey, Mary
中科院分区:
医学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Chalmers, Samuel;Fuller, Joel T.;Magarey, Mary

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

目的:功能性运动筛查(FMS)是一种流行的筛查工具,然而,在青少年运动员中,关于预期损伤与FMS评分之间的假设关系的研究仍然很少。设计:前瞻性队列研究。方法:237名澳大利亚优秀青少年足球运动员在季前赛后期完成FMS测试,并在常规赛期间对他们的每周比赛状态进行监测。结果:FMS总分的中位数为14分(平均值=13.5+/-2.3)。先验分析表明,>=1个不对称分测验的存在与伤害风险的适度增加有关(危险比=2.2[1.0-4.8];相对风险=1.9;p=0.047;敏感性=78.4%;特异性=41.0%)。值得注意的是,专案后分析发现,>=2个不对称亚项测试的存在与预期伤害风险的增加有关(风险比=3.71.6-8.6%;相对风险=2.8p=0.003;敏感性=66.7%;特异性=78.0%)。达到综合得分为
Objectives: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is a popular screening tool, however, the postulated relationship between prospective injury and FMS scoring remains sparsely explored in adolescent athletes. The aim of the study was to examine the association between pre-season FMS scores and injuries sustained during one regular season competition in elite adolescent Australian football players.Design: Prospective cohort study.Methods: 237 elite junior Australian football players completed FMS testing during the late pre-season phase and had their weekly playing status monitored during the regular season. The definition of an injury was 'a trauma which caused a player to miss a competitive match'.Results: The median composite FMS score was 14 (mean = 13.5 +/- 2.3). An apriori analysis revealed that the presence of >= 1 asymmetrical sub-test was associated with a moderate increase in the risk of injury (hazard ratio = 2.2 [1.0-4.8]; relative risk = 1.9; p = 0.047; sensitivity = 78.4%; specificity = 41.0%). Notably, post-hoc analysis identified that the presence of >= 2 asymmetrical sub-tests was associated with an even greater increase in risk of prospective injury (hazard ratio = 3.7 [1.6-8.6]; relative risk = 2.8; p = 0.003; sensitivity = 66.7%; specificity = 78.0%). Achieving a composite score of