ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
A hip test battery for clinical practice: reliability, reference values, and the pitfalls of the Limb Symmetry Index.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable and clinically interpretable assessments are essential to guide evaluation, monitoring, and return-to-sport decision-making after hip injury or surgery. However, no comprehensive test battery currently integrates intra- and inter-rater reliability, reference values in healthy individuals, and the reliability of the Limb Symmetry Index (LSI). We propose an integrated clinical assessment framework linking measurement reliability (ICC), interpretability (SEM, MDC, reference values), and clinical decision-making.
methodsThis cross-sectional reliability study included 94 healthy recreational adults (mean age 28.4 ± 8.5 years; 39% women). A subsample (n = 20) underwent a retest after 7 ± 2 days to assess intra-rater reliability. Outcome measures included hip range of motion (flexion, internal and external rotation), isometric hip strength (flexors, abductors, adductors), and functional performance tests (medial hop, single-leg squat, modified Star Excursion Balance Test [SEBTm], and endurance squat). The LSI was calculated for relevant outcomes. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [2,1]), along with standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95%).
resultsMost hip strength and range-of-motion measures demonstrated good reliability (ICC > 0.70), with MDC values of 55-79 N for strength and 12-18° for hip flexion. Medial hop performance showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.89-0.95; MDC = 18-26 cm), and SEBTm demonstrated low measurement error (MDC = 9-14 cm). In contrast, single-leg squat and endurance squat tests showed lower reliability. Medial hop performance was strongly correlated with hip abductor (r = 0.52) and adductor strength (r = 0.51). All LSIs demonstrated poor reliability (ICC < 0.50; MDC range: 11.9-47.9%, mean ≈ 27%).
conclusionsRange-of-motion measures, particularly active and passive hip flexion, demonstrated the highest reliability, with MDC values ranging from 12° to 18°. Strength tests showed good reliability but substantial measurement error, limiting their ability to detect meaningful individual changes. Among functional assessments, the medial hop demonstrated excellent reliability. In contrast, adductor-to-abductor strength ratios and the Limb Symmetry Index (LSI) exhibited poor reliability and large MDC values (≈ 27%), questioning their usefulness as standalone criteria for clinical decision-making and return-to-sport assessment. These findings support prioritizing absolute measures interpreted against their MDC and reference values within a multidimensional assessment framework.
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.