Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Introduction: The Functional Movement Screen is a clinical tool that evaluates stability and joint mobility. This systematic review aims to analyze the convergent validity of the Functional Movement Screen regarding stability and joint mobility, i.e., the association between the Functional Movement Screen scores and the results of other tests that evaluate stability and/or joint mobility.
Methods: Review conducted according to PRISMA Guidelines. The databases MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, and SportDiscus were accessed. The search included articles published between January 1st 1998 and July 5th 2022. Inclusion criteria for the articles were: peer reviewed conference proceedings abstracts or scientific journals articles that related the Functional Movement Screen scores with the results of other instruments that evaluate stability and/or joint mobility. No restrictions regarding language. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included articles.
Results: A total of 718 studies were identified. Only 43 studies were included. All studies presented weak methodological quality. Most studies revealed no significant correlations between the Functional Movement Screen scores and the results of other tests that evaluate stability and joint mobility. Few studies identified high correlations.
Discussion: High correlations between FMS scores and the results of other tests are scarce. Most studies revealed no significant correlations. The nonexistence of high correlations might be due to lack of quality of comparison measures. Future research using gold-standard methods is needed.
Conclusion: Functional Movement Screen does not appear to have convergent validity regarding the assessment of stability and joint mobility.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.02.014 | DOI Listing |