Dear totout:
Thank you for the review of anatomy and physiology 101.
However, just because the item or piece of anatomy is there and the function is known does not mean that it is the cause of the problem. The question remains: is it the cause or the effect???
Tests for theSIJ are over 100 years old and this has not improved the statistics on low back pain.
To illustrate: You car has what are called ball joints in the steering mechanism. The mechanic who just tested the ball joints without looking at the tires and wheels for problems would be amiss and legally liable for the problems that you would encounter.
In physical disciplines of all vatieties, the testing in low back pain is focused to a large extent on the SIJ. True - it is there. True - it has a function,. However, is it the problem - the cause- or effect of another problem????
This is why I posted the item on the site. I have not seen good results from the numberous SIj tests and neither have others that I have demonstrated the newer test to. A most common complaint by physios is that the present tests leave them wondering if the information is reliable. That includes the Diane lee/Hungerford tests!
Some have looked at this throught tunnel vision - not wishing to "rock the boat" or wishing to examine their viewpoint. That is up to them.
Two Canadian professors and the OGI have shown interest in the newer test proposed using the innominate bone position test.
Best regards,
Neuromuscular.








