Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41669570›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

The Standing Forward Flexion Test in Manual Therapy: A Critical Review and a Functional Reinterpretation.

Saverio Colonna, Fabio Casacci

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Saverio ColonnaRehabilitation Medicine, Spine Center, Bologna, ITA.
Fabio CasacciRehabilitation Medicine, Spine Center, Bologna, ITA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The standing forward flexion test (SFT) is widely used in manual and osteopathic practice as a palpatory assessment traditionally interpreted as a test for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Despite its popularity, the clinical meaning of SFT findings remains controversial, particularly in light of evidence demonstrating the minimal intrinsic mobility of the sacroiliac joint, high prevalence of pelvic morphological asymmetries, and multifactorial determinants of posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) motion. Several studies have questioned the clinical utility of the SFT, reporting poor inter-examiner reliability when the test is performed without standardized procedures or adequate examiner training. This critical narrative review aims to re-examine the SFT by clearly distinguishing issues of reproducibility from those of interpretative validity, and by integrating biomechanical, anatomical, and myofascial evidence. The available literature indicates that, following specific and standardized training, the SFT may achieve acceptable levels of reproducibility and inter-examiner agreement. However, PSIS asymmetries observed during trunk flexion appear to reflect global adaptations of the lumbopelvic complex, including pelvic morphology, hip mobility, and cranial and caudal myofascial tension, rather than isolated sacroiliac joint motion. From this perspective, the SFT shows important limitations in terms of content, construct, and criterion validity when used as a diagnostic test for sacroiliac pathology. Instead, it may be more appropriately interpreted as a functional assessment of lumbopelvic rhythm during the transition from trunk extension to flexion. Abandoning a binary positive/negative interpretation in favor of a graded, context-dependent evaluation may enhance the clinical relevance of the SFT when integrated into a comprehensive biomechanical assessment.

Indexed as

clinical interpretationfunctional assessmentlumbopelvic rhythmmanual therapy testmyofascial dysfunctionpalpatory reliabilitypelvic asymmetrypelvic palpationsacroiliac jointstanding forward flexion

Identifiers

PMID41669570
PMCPMC12884565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.