ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Prone-Position Modified Silfverskiöld Test: Feasibility and Reliability.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gastrocnemius tightness contributes to several foot and ankle pathologies. The Silfverskiöld test, traditionally being performed in supine or sitting positions, differentiates isolated gastrocnemius and combined gastrocnemius-soleus tightness. The senior author of this study has performed a prone-position modification in clinical practice for simplicity, practicality, and ability to provide bilateral comparison. This diagnostic reliability study aims to establish the prone-position modification of the Silfverskiöld test and compare dorsiflexion measurements with established techniques. Methods: Prone-position modification of the Silfverskiöld test is performed with feet extending beyond the couch. Both feet are tested together with passive dorsiflexion first with knees in full extension and then in 90 degrees flexion. After initial evaluation in 5 healthy volunteers, the technique was compared with supine, sitting, and lunge tests in 15 patients with diverse foot and ankle pathologies. A consultant foot and ankle surgeon and musculoskeletal physiotherapist each performed the tests twice. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were assessed using ICCs (2-way random effects model). Dorsiflexion differences among prone, supine, and sitting positions were examined using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post hoc testing. Each patient was asked to grade the 4 tests as per degree of comfort during these tests. Results: The prone-position modification showed good to excellent reliability. Interobserver ICCs were 0.89 (95% CI 0.77-0.97) in full extension and 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.97) in 90 degrees flexion. Intraobserver ICCs ranged from 0.94 to 0.97. ANOVA demonstrated no significant differences in dorsiflexion among prone, supine, and sitting positions in full extension ( Conclusion: The prone-position modification of the Silfverskiöld test provides reliable, clinically comparable dorsiflexion measurements and is well tolerated. Although findings support its utility, the modest sample size suggests that further validation in larger cohorts is warranted. Level of Evidence: Level II, diagnostic reliability study.
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.