New research: No such thing as "stuck" SI joint

[alophysio]

Hi Neuromuscular,

Yes, i speak of one SIJ test because it is research-based and validated. The others have poor reliability but that is in its conclusion, not the testing. I use STANCE PHASE SIJ assessment during contralateral hip flexion but you could do other hip movements with the same assessment...including hip ABD

For instance, standing flexion test with PSIS and S2 landmarks - so many other things get in the way that you don't really get a good idea of what it is that is causing forward bending test results to vary...you can take out the most obvious reason - hams pulling on sacrum via sacrotuberous ligament by re-doing the test with slight knee flexion. It works but i the tests i do are just fine thanks - just do the stance phase stork with light knee bend on the stance leg and it takes out the hams and gives you an idea of where to go.

You can quote your own % as much as you want but if you want people to take you seriously, then publish the results and have it peer reviewed. I can tell you that i have success at identifying 95% of problems my own way but how much are you going to trust me?

Hungerford's name is Barbara by the way, not Myk and Diane Lee's name has 1 'n' only...

your test is static, my test is dynamic - can't say is better than the other i am afraid...

[neuromuscular]

Deart ALophysio:

It is interesting that you agree that the diferent phases of the test show differing results or produce confussing results. Then choose to do only the one that you feel is accurate. Why eliminate the other phases or minimize them? On what basis???

I had been using this test prior to the hip ABD test. However, the hip ABD test does NOT give confusing results, but a progression of results that concurr with each other rather than give differring results.

The standing SIJ test is an OLD test to be sure, but "proven", much less so. Every "expert" has a different spin on the test that is more "accurate" than the other "experts". Is this not like Ptolemy and the subtheories to prove the discrepancies???

Most others use the "swing" phase mr torso flexion, from the people that I have talked to, if you wish to use the currrent designation by some, but you prefer the "stance" phase. In reality, are you not seeing only half of the information? Are you not picking and chosing what information you consider to be accurate???

Did you really give the hip ABD test and the APAS a fair and unbiased approach? Or was the jury decided before the test was tried??? You like the published "experts". Can you consider something on the basis of its own worth???

Our bias often shows and we charge others with bias. As I have said, I have tried the standing SIJ test with hip flexion and torso flexion - for an extended time before i happened on the hip ABD test Each gives information that does not totally coincide with the other "phases" of the test. Should we each pick and chose which phase of the test we will consider to be the "accurate" phase??? On what basis???

Could this be why you do not see the results from the hip ABD test as very relevant? Must the test be accredited by every Tom, Dick and Harry to be "acceptable'??? Book knowledge has been stated as living inside the box and not being able to see outside the box. Do we need to see outside the box???

I like to look at things from what the test is telling me. The test has to stand or fall on its own merit and not how much has been published in its behalf. I feel that the older "stork" test is not reliable in all of its "phases", as the terms are today, anymore that it was years ago before everyone called them phases. That is based on its conflicting information from eahc of the "phases" from ipsilateral hip flexion to contralateral hip flexion to torso flexion.

Best regards,

NEUROMUSCULAR.