To all:

This was to be an open and free discussion on the problems with Wikipedia reference-linkSIJ testing.

For some, it has turned out to be a forum to use the status quo by quoting all of the peer "authorities" of the time.

What has been agreed on?

First, that IN THE MAJORITY, there is no structural problem with the SIJ. That the SIJ itself is not the problem.

Therefore, my comments stand that there is no such thing as a "stuck" SIJ IN THE MAJORITY as indicated by the most used tests of our time.

These tests are then useless or redundant at the best.

If we have already found out from the patient history that the patient has LBP or pain in the hip, pelvis or thigh, of what benefit is it to do the standing SIJ test of every type straighaway when it will only tell us that there is another problem outside of the SIJ itself IN THE MAJORITY? Should we not be doing a test that flows in an orderly way to a conclusion of the patient's true condition?

Why the SIJ test when there is no true SIJ "form closure" problem in the majority?

I have proposed a standing innominate bone position test for all to give feedback on. I find that it gives me information on which to build and gives a flow of information that leads to a better assessment quicker.

The test is of the ASIS to ASIS with hip ABD. ASIS to PSIS (R) with hip ABD. ASIS to PSIS (L) with hip ABD. PSIS to PSIS with hip ABD.

The exact wdth of foot stance positions is not as important as having the patient do the hip ABD directly lateral in the coronal plane. For those in the metric world the width can increase from closed to the maxmum width for the patient by 25 cm or less increments. For those in the Imperial or US realm, the widths can increase by 6 inch or one foot increments.

Some disagree that the new test tells them anything new. However, is it because all of the authority has focused on the SIJ testing and that anything other is not considered or is there a logical demographic factor that is not considered? If true structural problems are rare, should the model of form closure/ force closure/neurological/emotional be changed to have the neuromuscular or force closure part first so that less emphasis would be placed on the SIJ itself??? Do we wanrt to keep putting so much emphasis on the ASIJ or move the emphasis to where the most common problems are?

That is what would be of interest to find out.

However, if so far the agreement is that the SIJ structure is not the problem, of what use is all of the SIJ testing, if all we know after the test is that we need to do other tests????????????

Best regards,

Neuromuscular.