FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT SCREEN™ (FMS™) SCORES DO NOT PREDICT OVERALL OR LOWER EXTREMITY INJURY RISK IN COLLEGIATE DANCERS

• Published in: International journal of sports physical therapy Vol. 15; no. 6; pp. 1029 - 1035
• Main Authors: Coogan, Sarah M, Schock, Catherine S, Hansen-Honeycutt, Jena, Caswell, Shane, Cortes, Nelson, Ambegaonkar, Jatin P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Sports Physical Therapy Section 01.12.2020
• Subjects: Original Research; Dance Medicine; Screening Tool; Injury Prevention; Aesthetic Athlete; Movement System
• ISSN: 2159-2896; 2159-2896
• DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20201029

Dance is a physically demanding activity, with 50-85% of dancers suffering injury during a single performance season. The majority of dancers' injuries are in the lower extremity (LE) and chronic in nature. These injuries often arise when causal factors are not identified early and addressed before they ultimately result in an injury. Practitioners often use movement screens such as the Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) to detect and quantify kinetic chain dysfunction. Prior researchers have suggested that these screens can stratify at-risk individuals and allow practitioners to devise targeted interventions to reduce their injury risk. However, whether the FMS™ can identify at-risk dancers remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine whether FMS™ scores predicted injury risk in collegiate dancers. In this prospective study, 43 collegiate dance majors (34 female, 9 male; 18.3 ± 0.7yrs; 163.9 ± 7.3cm; 60.8 ± 8.1kg) in a program which emphasizes modern dance were scored on the seven FMS™ movements (scale 0-3, total maximum score=21) where 3=movement completed without compensation, 2=movement completed, but with compensation(s), 1=unable to complete movement, 0=pain during movement or during clearing tests as described in prior literature at the start of the academic year. An in-house certified athletic trainer documented dancer's overall and LE injuries over an academic year (40 weeks). Separate Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses examined whether composite FMS™ score predicted (1) Overall or (2) LE injury status. The subjects FMS™ scores were 16.2 + 1.7 (range=11-19). Twenty dancers were injured, whereas 23 remained injury-free. Injured dancers had 55 overall (1.28 injuries/dancer) and 44 LE injuries (1.02 LE injuries/dancer). FMS™ score did not predict overall (AUC=.28, SE=.08, p=.02, 95%CI=.13-.43) or LE injury risk (AUC=.38, SE=.1, p=.21, 95% CI=.21-.56). While nearly half of the dancers in this group suffered from injury over the year, composite FMS™ scores did not predict overall or LE injury risk in collegiate dancers. Dancers face unique and challenging physical demands that distinguish them from traditional sport-athletes including greater ranges of movement during performance. Thus, the FMS™ may not be sensitive enough to distinguish 'appropriate' from 'excessive' mobility and adequately identify injury risk in dancers. Overall, it is suggested that practitioners should use caution before using the FMS™ as a primary screening mechanism to identify collegiate dancers at overall or LE injury risk. 2.