ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2024
The standard posture is a myth: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical Development and Postural Behaviors in Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between Dentofacial and Body Postural Asymmetries in Patients with Malocclusions-A Cross-Sectional Clinical Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Reliability and Accuracy of Standard Reference Procedures for Measurements of Trunk and Arm Postures in Ergonomics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe standard posture described in Kendall's manual is commonly used for postural assessment. However, no bibliographic reference was provided to support its use.
objectiveTo identify the original source and the procedure followed for the design of that posture and to compare it with current literature on the subject.
methodsIn accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations, PubMed and Scopus were searched using the terms "standing posture", "plum line," and "gravity line". Publications in English, French, German, or Spanish that referred to posture in adults without pathology were included.
resultsSix articles and 3 books were included in the final analysis. An identical posture to that described in Kendall's manual was identified in an early 19th-century work carried out with the unrealistic objective of maintaining static bipedal standing without muscular support, and including several anatomical misconceptions. Furthermore, the "ideal alignment" described in Kendall's manual does not correspond to the actual line of gravity, the comfortable posture, or natural postural compensations due to age, gender, or race.
conclusionThe utilization of this standard to ascertain postural deficiencies is not supported by current evidence and may result in numerous false positives, particularly in the elderly.
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.