Effective Interventions for Improving Functional Movement Screen Scores Among "High-Risk" Athletes: A Systematic Review.
Sean C Clark, Nicholas D Rowe, Mohamed Adnan and 2 others
PMID 35136681WHAT IT FOUND
Six-week to eight-week exercise programs improved Functional Movement Screen scores by an average of 3.28 points.
Supervised training worked while video-only did not. Foot strengthening showed mixed results depending on the exercise. Most studies lacked control groups, so natural improvement cannot be ruled out.
Key findings
01Post-intervention FMS scores significantly increased in all six included studies, with a mean improvement of 3.28 points across the pooled data.
02Supervised resistance training improved FMS scores, but an online video-based group performing the same routine did not show improvement.
03One foot muscle strengthening program significantly improved FMS scores, while a different foot exercise in the same study did not reach statistical significance.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most included studies did not have control groups, making it impossible to know if the scores improved because of the exercise or just because the athletes practiced the test or matured. The studies varied greatly in the type of exercise, duration, and athlete age, so it is unclear which specific program is best for which patient. The review did not measure whether these FMS score improvements actually reduced the risk of injury, which is the main reason clinicians use the FMS. Compliance and proper execution were not strictly monitored in all studies, which may explain why unsupervised groups did not improve.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret an increase in FMS score as proof that the athlete's injury risk has decreased. The review did not include injury outcomes, and without control groups, some of the score improvement may be due to learning the test or natural variation rather than the exercise itself.