Background: The validity of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) in identifying active females who are predisposed to injury has not been specifically reviewed. This study aims to synthesize the literature on the ability of the FMS to identify at-risk active females. Methods: Six online databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Science Direct, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar, were searched for the period of April 2006 to September 2021. Out of the 61 potential references, 17 were reviewed in detail with respect to the inclusion criteria; ten were ultimately included. The risk of bias, applicability and level of the studies were then identified using the QUADAS-2 and a checklist for assessing methodological quality. The following data were obtained from the included studies: year of publication, title, study type, participants’ demographic, sample size, FMS cutoff point, injury definition, statistical analyses used, FMS results and study level. Results: Generally, the quality of eight studies was poor to moderate due to both small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. Except for a study on military members, all studies were carried out on team sports players. The overall bias of the studies was low, but there was an unclear amount of bias for participant selection. Two studies reported no predictive validity for the FMS, while three defended its predictive validity; the rest partially supported the FMS as a valid diagnostic tool. The reliability of the recommended cutoff point was confirmed, though cutoffs higher than 14 were significantly associated with the predictive ability of the FMS. Conclusion: Although the FMS is reliable for clinical practice, and the current literature shows promise regarding the predictive ability of the FMS among active females, concerns remain regarding its validity in identifying at-risk females. Given the lack of clarity in the literature on the use of the FMS in females, further well-organized studies with larger sample sizes and longer monitoring periods are highly recommended. The sensitivity and specificity of the recommended cutoff of ≤ 14 has considerably decreased , and higher cutoff values should be applied to increase the FMS predictive ability. Level of evidence The level of evidence was determined to be 2b.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of an eight-week 11 + S programme on isokinetic shoulder strength in young male volleyball players. Twenty-eight top-level young male volleyball players were recruited for this study. The players were randomly assigned into intervention (14 players) and control (14 players) groups. The intervention group performed the 11 + S as a warm-up before training at least three times a week for eight weeks. Dominant shoulder strength was measured using an isokinetic dynamometer at 60°/s and 180°/s. The functional deceleration ratio (FDR) was calculated as a functional strength profile. 20% FDR improvement after eight weeks of 11 + S at 180°/s (p = 0.003) were observed. No other statistically significant effects for shoulder strength improvement was observed (p > 0.05). Eight weeks of 11 + S warm-up programme improved the glenohumeral muscle imbalance by increasing the functional deceleration ratio (FDR) of shoulder muscles in young male volleyball players.

The perception of time holds a foundational significance regarding how we elucidate the chronological progression of events. While some studies have examined exercise effects on time perception during exercise periods, there are no studies investigating the effects of exercise fatigue on time perception after an exercise intervention. This study investigated the effects of physical and mental fatigue on time estimates over 30 s immediately post-exercise and 6 min post-test. Seventeen volunteers were subjected to three conditions: physical fatigue, mental fatigue, and control. All participants completed a familiarization session and were subjected to three 30 min experimental conditions (control, physical fatigue (cycling at 65% peak power output), and mental fatigue (Stroop task)) on separate days. Time perception, heart rate, and body temperature were recorded pre-test; at the start of the test; 5, 10, 20, 30 seconds into the interventions; post-test; and at the 6 min follow-up. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded four times during the intervention. Physical fatigue resulted in a significant (p = 0.001) underestimation of time compared to mental fatigue and control conditions at the post-test and follow-up, with no significant differences between mental fatigue and control conditions. Heart rate, body temperature, and RPE were significantly (all p = 0.001) higher with physical fatigue compared to mental fatigue and control conditions during the intervention and post-test. This study demonstrated that cycling-induced fatigue led to time underestimation compared to mental fatigue and control conditions. It is crucial to consider that physical fatigue has the potential to lengthen an individual’s perception of time estimates in sports or work environments.

We examined the effects of attentional focus cues on maximal voluntary force output of the elbow flexors and the underlying physiological mechanisms. Eleven males participated in two randomized experimental sessions. In each session, four randomized blocks of three maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) were performed. The blocks consisted of two externally and two internally attentional focus cued blocks. In one of the sessions, corticospinal excitability (CSE) was measured. During the stimulation session transcranial magnetic, transmastoid and Erb’s point stimulations were used to induce motor evoked potentials (MEPs), cervicomedullary MEP (CMEPs) and maximal muscle action potential (Mmax), respectively in the biceps brachii. Across both sessions forces were lower (p = 0.024) under the internal (282.4 ± 60.3 N) compared to the external condition (310.7 ± 11.3 N). Muscle co-activation was greater (p = 0.016) under the internal (26.3 ± 11.5%) compared with the external condition (21.5 ± 9.4%). There was no change in CSE. Across both sessions, force measurements were lower (p = 0.033) during the stimulation (279.0 ± 47.1 N) compared with the no-stimulation session (314.1 ± 57.5 N). In conclusion, external focus increased force, likely due to reduced co-activation. Stimulating the corticospinal pathway may confound attentional focus. The stimulations may distract participants from the cues and/or disrupt areas of the cortex responsible for attention and focus.