Search

Background: The Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS™) has been the focus of recent research related to movement profiling and injury prediction. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the associations between physical performance tasks such as balance and the FMS™ screening system. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare measures of static balance in stable and unstable conditions between different groups divided by FMS™ scores. A secondary purpose was to discern if balance indices discriminate the groups divided by FMS™ scores. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Fifty-seven physically active subjects (25 men and 32 women; mean age of 22.9 ± 3.1 yrs) participated. The outcome was unilateral stance balance indices, composed by: Anteroposterior Index; Medial-lateral Index, and Overall Balance Index in stable and unstable conditions, as provided by the Biodex balance platform. Subjects were dichotomized into two groups, according to a FMS™ cut-off score of 14: FMS1 (score >14) and FMS2 (score ≤14). The independent Students t-test was used to verify differences in balance indices between FMS1 and FMS2 groups. A discriminant analysis was applied in order to identify which of the balance indices would adequately discriminate the FMS™ groups. Results: Comparisons between FMS1 and FMS2 groups in the stable and unstable conditions demonstrated a higher unstable Anteroposterior index for FMS2 (p=0.017). No significant differences were found for other comparisons (p>0.05). The indices did not discriminate the FMS™ groups (p>0.05). Conclusions: The balance indices adopted in this study were not useful as a parameter for identification and discrimination of healthy subjects assessed by the FMS™. Level of evidence: 2c. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzed the accuracy/agreement of the Omron MX3 monitor on 165 adolescents. Blood pressure was measured by the automatic monitor connected in Y with the mercury column (three consecutive and simultaneous measures). The independent measures were analyzed, and the mean differences between systolic and diastolic measures for both methods were calculated and compared with British Hypertension Society (BHS) and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) criteria. The automatic monitor received the highest degree of BHS recommendations for systolic and diastolic blood pressures according to the BHS. The median (25th and 75th) difference between the observer and the monitor measurements was -2 (-6 and 1) mmHg for systolic and 0 (-3 and 1) mmHg for diastolic pressures. The monitor also satisfies the AAMI standard for the studied population. In conclusion, the Omron MX3 Plus monitor can be considered reliable and valid for clinical practice and is in accordance with BHS and AAMI criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]