Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Br J Sports Med. 2016 Dec 1;51(7):580–585. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096760

Table 2.

Summary of significant and non-significant movement quality outcomes by quantity, quality and level of evidence.

Level of Evidence^ 1 2 3 4 5 Total Studies
a b: RCT c a b: True/Quasi Experimental b: Cohort b: Historical Cohort c a b: Case Control Pilot cohort Cross-sectional
Risk Factor SIG NOT SIG NOT SIG NOT SIG NOT
FMS total score 4 3–12) 1 (10) 5
FMS ≤14 1 (15) 5 (7–12) 4 (9–14) 10
FMS ≤ 12 1* (9) 3 (10–12) 4
FMS HS 2 (9–12) 4 (8–12) 6
FMS ILL 2 (12) 4 (8–14) 6
FMS DS 3 (8–14) 3 (9–11) 6
LESS total score 1 (11) 1 (14) 2
LESS ≥ 5 1 (11) 1 (14) 2

Cell values represent number of studies (range of Downs and Black quality assessment tool scores). As per exclusion criteria, systematic reviews (1a, 2a, 3a), case series (4) and opinion-based papers (5) were not included (shown in dark grey).

^

Level of evidence is based on the modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Model.

*

= female participants only, DS = deep squat, FMS = Functional Movement Screen, HS = hurdle step, ILL = in-line lunge, LESS = Landing Error Scoring System.