ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2016
The reliability and validity of the Saliba Postural Classification System.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dynamic Balance and Chest Mobility of Older Adults after Speleotherapy Combined with Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Endurance and Strength Training-A Prospective Study in Chronic Respiratory Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the reliability and validity of the Saliba Postural Classification System (SPCS).
methodsTwo physical therapists classified pictures of 100 volunteer participants standing in their habitual posture for inter and intra-tester reliability. For validity, 54 participants stood on a force plate in a habitual and a corrected posture, while a vertical force was applied through the shoulders until the clinician felt a postural give. Data were extracted at the time the give was felt and at a time in the corrected posture that matched the peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) in the habitual posture.
resultsInter-tester reliability demonstrated 75% agreement with a Kappa = 0.64 (95% CI = 0.524-0.756, SE = 0.059). Intra-tester reliability demonstrated 87% agreement with a Kappa = 0.8, (95% CI = 0.702-0.898, SE = 0.05) and 80% agreement with a Kappa = 0.706, (95% CI = 0.594-0818, SE = 0.057). The examiner applied a significantly higher (p < 0.001) peak vertical force in the corrected posture prior to a postural give when compared to the habitual posture. Within the corrected posture, the %VGRF was higher when the test was ongoing vs. when a postural give was felt (p < 0.001). The %VGRF was not different between the two postures when comparing the peaks (p = 0.214). DISCUSSION: The SPCS has substantial agreement for inter- and intra-tester reliability and is largely a valid postural classification system as determined by the larger vertical forces in the corrected postures. Further studies on the correlation between the SPCS and diagnostic classifications are indicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.