SynthesisPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2026
Reliability of physical examination tests for assessing hip flexor flexibility: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability of physical examination tests used for assessing hip flexor flexibility, including the Modified Thomas Test (MTT), Thomas Test, Reactive Hip Flexor Test, Swing Test, and Falcon Test. LITERATURE SURVEY: A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases (PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source) up to March 2024. METHODOLOGY: Studies were included if they reported intra- or interrater reliability outcomes for clinical tests assessing hip flexor flexibility, using recognized statistical measures such as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), SEM, minimal detectable change, or Bland-Altman plots. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to calculate pooled ICC values for intra- and interrater reliability, with subgroup analyses based on the type of flexibility test. SYNTHESIS: The meta-analysis included 27 studies, comprising 1056 participants. The overall pooled intrarater ICC was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) in 888 participants, indicating excellent reliability, and the interrater ICC was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88) in 665 participants, reflecting good reliability. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed for both intrarater (I
conclusionsPhysical examination tests for hip flexor flexibility demonstrate generally high intra- and interrater reliability. However, considerable methodological variability was identified, particularly for the MTT and Thomas Test, suggesting a need for standardized protocols. Newer tests, such as the Falcon and Swing Tests, showed excellent reliability but require further validation.
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.