Untitled

Abstract

Poor functional movement is a risk factor for injuries in soccer players. Players with dysfunctional movement patterns, measured by the Functional Movement Screen (FMSTM), are more likely to suffer an injury compared than those who have higher scores on the FMSTM. The purpose of our study was to assess the effectiveness of 8-weeks of functional movement-based training on fundamental movement patterns. Two groups of Professional male soccer players (experimental, N=15, and control N=15), aged between 18 and 28, of an Italian second division team were compared using the pre-post FMSTM scores after intervention. RM-MANOVA 2 Groups (experimental and control) X 2 Test (pre and post) on the FMS scores revealed a significant a difference for the interaction between Groups and Tests (Wilk's lamba .712, F(3,26) = 3.50, p =.029 Eta2 = .288 Power .713). Following Univariate results on the three subscales of the FMSTM revealed significant interaction between group and test on advanced movement (F(1,28) = 5.19, p = .03, eta2 =.157, observed power .595) and mobility (F(1,28) = 3.89, p = .050, eta2 =.122, observed power .478) but not on stability (p = .305). The results of this study suggest that an 8-week intervention program was an effective way for improving FMSTM scores in a group of male professional soccer players, particularly for advanced movement and mobility subscales. From an applied point of view this findings provide more evidence on the efficacy of qualitative intervention on functional movement pattern improvement that is related to the injury prevention and suggest the importance of specific movement-based intervention with soccer players.

Exercise-Based Training Strategies to Reduce the Incidence or Mitigate the Risk Factors of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Adult Football (Soccer) Players: A Systematic Review

“…The study designs used were 11 parallel RCT [60,[62][63][64][65]68,69,73,78,80,81], 4 cluster RCT [53,[56][57][58], 8 NRCT [54,55,59,66,67,72,75,79] and 6 single-arm studies [61,70,71,74,76,77]. 10 out of 15 RCT studies implemented at least one of the following four different preventative warm-up (WU) programmes (Table 2): (i) FIFA 11 [80], (ii) FIFA 11+ [56][57][58]60,63,73,78], (iii) Prevent injury and Enhance Performance (PEP) Program [53], and (iv) core stability training [65].…”

“…10 out of 15 RCT studies implemented at least one of the following four different preventative warm-up (WU) programmes (Table 2): (i) FIFA 11 [80], (ii) FIFA 11+ [56][57][58]60,63,73,78], (iii) Prevent injury and Enhance Performance (PEP) Program [53], and (iv) core stability training [65]. Additionally, the other 5 studies implemented resistance training (RT)- [62,64], balance- [68,69] or mixed training (MT)-based interventions [81]. Four out of these 15 RCTs were evaluated through its ability to reduce contact, non-contact or overall ACL injury incidence [53,[56][57][58], while the other 9 were evaluated through its effect on different ACL injury risk factors, such as different measures of static and dynamic balance ability [60,63,68,69,73], H/Q ratios [62,64,65,80], biomechanics of dynamic tasks [65,73,80], Functional Movement Score (FMS) [78,81], and ankle ROM and symmetry in hop tests [60].…”

Peer Review #1 of "Effects of functional correction training on injury risk of athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (v0.1)"

“…Four studies included random grouping; however, they did not provide any specific methods. Blinding of the outcome assessors was performed in two studies (Campa et al, 2018;Riela & Bertollo, 2019). The outcome evaluators of the other four studies were not blinded, as repeated measurement reliability, inter-rater reliability, and high-precision professional electronic instruments were used to record data (Song et al, 2014;Kim et al, 2014;Klusemann et al, 2012;Yildiz, Pinar & Gelen, 2019).…”

Peer Review #2 of "Effects of functional correction training on injury risk of athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (v0.2)"

“…The included studies were published between January 1997 and September 2020. The sports included for research were baseball (Song et al, 2014), table tennis (Kangkang et al, 2016), volleyball (Xuhua et al, 2015), free kicking (Bodden, Needham & Chockalingam, 2015), basketball (Klusemann et al, 2012;Hui andBaoai, 2019), soccer (Dinc et al, 2017;Campa, Spiga & Toselli, 2018;Riela & Bertollo, 2019;Schneider et al, 2019), tennis (Yildiz, Pinar & Gelen, 2019), netball (Kovac, 2018, and wrestling (Bayati et al, 2019). Three studies were not included in the meta-analysis for the following reasons: one was missing data regarding the total FMS™ scores and sports injury but included data regarding the strength and flexibility of the athletes (Song et al, 2014), and two studies had single-group sample sizes fewer than 10 people and very low quality assessment scores (the PEDro quality scale score for physical therapy was only 4 points) (Kim et al, 2014;Armstrong et al, 2019).…”

“…We used the PEDro physical therapy quality scale to evaluate article quality and the primary difference between randomized and non-randomized trials (Table 5). Some studies included athletes who were randomly divided into groups in a blinded manner (Bobben et al, 2015;Kovac et al, 2018;Campa et al, 2018;Riela & Bertollo, 2019). Some studies did not conduct PeerJ reviewing PDF | ( 2020:10:53313:2:1:NEW 17 Feb 2021) Manuscript to be reviewed random grouping of athletes, therefore, there was no score for this item.…”