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 population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—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 .
The Epidemiology of Knee Injuries in English Professional Rugby Union
Background Detailed injury epidemiology is an invaluable tool for reducing risks associated with sporting injuries . Very little accurate injury surveillance data exist regarding knee injuries in professional rugby . Hypotheses ( 1 ) Knee injuries have a greater impact on the game than injuries to other body locations . ( 2 ) Anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament injuries cause the greatest days absent from training and match play . Study Design Descriptive epidemiology study . Methods Medical personnel prospect ively reported time-loss injuries sustained by 546 professional rugby union players from 12 clubs in Engl and over 2 seasons , and the knee injuries were evaluated . Results Injuries to the knee accounted for the highest number of days absent due to injury ( 7776 days , 21 % ) and were characteristically severe , with a disproportionately high number of days missed per injury ( 37 days ) . Anterior cruciate ligament injuries accounted for the greatest proportion of days missed of all knee injuries ( 29 % ) , followed by medial collateral ligament injuries ( 25 % ) . Most severe injuries occurred during contact , mostly during a tackle , and most commonly in the final 20 minutes of a match . Injuries tended to be more common in backs . Injuries sustained during training accounted for 16 % of all knee injuries . Each club studied had a mean of 10 knee injuries per season result ing in a total of 353 days absent . Conclusions The incidence of knee injuries sustained during matches was higher than that reported in all other football codes , surpassed only by rugby union at the international level . Knee injuries accounted for the highest player absence due to injury ; 5 % of an average playing squad were absent at any one time due to knee injuries
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 population
Abstract Bennett , H , Davison , K , Arnold , J , Slattery , F , Martin , M , and Norton , K. Multicomponent musculoskeletal movement assessment tools : a systematic review and critical appraisal of their development and applicability to professional practice .
J Strength Cond Res 31(10 ) : 2903–2919 , 2017—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 .