Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Mobility, proprioception, strength and FMS as predictors of injury in professional footballers

Yeung, Jonathan ORCID:, Cleves, Andrew, Griffiths, Hywell and Nokes, Leonard Derek Martin ORCID: 2016. Mobility, proprioception, strength and FMS as predictors of injury in professional footballers. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine 2 (1) , e000134. 10.1136/bmjsem-2016-000134

[thumbnail of e000134.full.pdf]
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (950kB) | Preview


Background The premise of this study was to investigate if anthropometric variables such as mobility, proprioception, strength and modified Functional Movement Screen (mFMS) could be used as primary indicators of injury risk in an English Championship division football team. This study focused on moderate injuries occurring in the lower extremities, during the 2014/2015 competitive season. Methods To differentiate between minor, moderate and severe injuries, this study classified moderate injuries as an injury with an average injury severity of 2–28 days. This study is composed of 4 individual investigations. Each variable was assessed against 2 groups: injured (n=6) and non-injured (n=10). The 2 groups were compiled from the first team, with the criteria that each participant of this study required: full preseason assessment and injury history for the time period, 1 July 2014 to 19 March 2015. A Mann-Whitney U test (0.05% significance) was applied to statistically analyse if each variable showed any variation across the 2 groups. Effect size was estimated with Cliff's d. Results Strength asymmetry displayed significant difference (p=0.007), mobility, proprioception and mFMS did not (p=0.263, p=0.792 and p=0.181, respectively). Mean scores for mobility, proprioception, strength asymmetry and mFMS for injured versus non-injured players (effect size) were: 40.00 vs 38.00 (0.37), 10.33 vs 10.20 (0.10), 61.13 vs 30.40 (0.80) and 7.33 vs 8.90 (−0.4), respectively. Conclusions This study found no relationship between mobility/proprioception and injury risk; however, strength asymmetry was statistically significant in predicting injury and mFMS exhibited enough positive difference for recommendation of further investigation.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Engineering
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GV Recreation Leisure
T Technology > TS Manufactures
Publisher: BMJ Group Ltd
ISSN: 2055-7647
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 25 May 2016
Date of Acceptance: 24 May 2016
Last Modified: 04 May 2023 00:38

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item


Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics