ArticleCureus2025
Improving the Reproducibility of the Standing Forward Flexion Test After Specific Training: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of the clinical and MRI characteristics associated with tennis leg.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- The Standing Forward Flexion Test in Manual Therapy: A Critical Review and a Functional Reinterpretation.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The standing forward flexion test (SFT) is commonly used in osteopathic and manual therapy practice to assess sacroiliac joint mobility, yet its reliability has long been questioned due to inconsistent inter- and intra-examiner agreement. This cross-sectional study evaluated whether a structured palpatory training program could improve the reproducibility of the SFT and analyzed which phase of the test-trunk flexion or standing contributes most to variability. Two senior osteopathy students independently assessed the posterior superior iliac spines (PSIS) of 72 asymptomatic participants across three sessions: baseline (T0), after 25 hours of specific training (T1), and final assessment (T2). In addition to the classical SFT, separate measurements were performed for each phase, allowing phase-specific comparison and the development of a "reverse SFT" procedure, in which palpation is executed first in flexion and then in standing. Agreement was quantified using weighted Cohen's κ, Gwet's AC2, and Brennan-Prediger κ. At baseline, reliability was poor (κw ≈ 0.14), consistent with previous literature. After training, both intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility increased substantially (κw = 0.60-0.83; AC2 = 0.60-0.82; Po = 0.81-0.92), with slightly higher agreement in flexion than in standing. These results demonstrate that palpatory variability is not an intrinsic limitation of manual assessment but reflects insufficient training and methodological inconsistency. A structured 25-hour consensus-based program can markedly improve diagnostic reproducibility, and the reverse SFT may represent a more stable and standardized approach for both educational and clinical use.
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.