A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Multicomponent Musculoskeletal Movement Assessment Tools: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Their Development and Applicability to Professional Practice. | LitMetric

Multicomponent movement assessment tools have become commonplace to measure movement quality, proposing to indicate injury risk and performance capabilities. Despite popular use, there has been no attempt to compare the components of each tool reported in the literature, the processes in which they were developed, or the underpinning rationale for their included content. As such, the objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive summary of current movement assessment tools and appraise the evidence supporting their development. A systematic literature search was performed using PRISMA guidelines to identify multicomponent movement assessment tools. Commonalities between tools and the evidence provided to support the content of each tool was identified. Each tool underwent critical appraisal to identify the rigor in which it was developed, and its applicability to professional practice. Eleven tools were identified, of which 5 provided evidence to support their content as assessments of movement quality. One assessment tool (Soccer Injury Movement Screen [SIMS]) received an overall score of above 65% on critical appraisal, with a further 2 tools (Movement Competency Screen [MCS] and modified 4 movement screen [M4-MS]) scoring above 60%. Only the MCS provided clear justification for its developmental process. The remaining 8 tools scored between 40 and 60%. On appraisal, the MCS, M4-MS, and SIMS seem to provide the most practical value for assessing movement quality as they provide the strongest reports of developmental rigor and an identifiable evidence base. In addition, considering the evidence provided, these tools may have the strongest potential for identifying performance capabilities and guiding exercise prescription in athletic and sport-specific populations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002058DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

movement assessment
16
assessment tools
16
critical appraisal
12
movement quality
12
movement
10
tools
9
systematic review
8
applicability professional
8
professional practice
8
multicomponent movement
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!