The standard posture is a myth: a scoping review.

IF 2.5 4区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.2340/jrm.v56.41899

Martin E Barra-López

{"title":"The standard posture is a myth: a scoping review.","authors":"Martin E Barra-López","doi":"10.2340/jrm.v56.41899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The standard posture described in Kendall's manual is commonly used for postural assessment. However, no bibliographic reference was provided to support its use.Objective: To identify the original source and the procedure followed for the design of that posture and to compare it with current literature on the subject.Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations, PubMed and Scopus were searched using the terms \"standing posture\", \"plum line,\" and \"gravity line\". Publications in English, French, German, or Spanish that referred to posture in adults without pathology were included.Results: Six articles and 3 books were included in the final analysis. An identical posture to that described in Kendall's manual was identified in an early 19th-century work carried out with the unrealistic objective of maintaining static bipedal standing without muscular support, and including several anatomical misconceptions. Furthermore, the \"ideal alignment\" described in Kendall's manual does not correspond to the actual line of gravity, the comfortable posture, or natural postural compensations due to age, gender, or race.Conclusion: The utilization of this standard to ascertain postural deficiencies is not supported by current evidence and may result in numerous false positives, particularly in the elderly.","PeriodicalId":54768,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492508/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v56.41899","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The standard posture described in Kendall's manual is commonly used for postural assessment. However, no bibliographic reference was provided to support its use.

Objective: To identify the original source and the procedure followed for the design of that posture and to compare it with current literature on the subject.

Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations, PubMed and Scopus were searched using the terms "standing posture", "plum line," and "gravity line". Publications in English, French, German, or Spanish that referred to posture in adults without pathology were included.

Results: Six articles and 3 books were included in the final analysis. An identical posture to that described in Kendall's manual was identified in an early 19th-century work carried out with the unrealistic objective of maintaining static bipedal standing without muscular support, and including several anatomical misconceptions. Furthermore, the "ideal alignment" described in Kendall's manual does not correspond to the actual line of gravity, the comfortable posture, or natural postural compensations due to age, gender, or race.

Conclusion: The utilization of this standard to ascertain postural deficiencies is not supported by current evidence and may result in numerous false positives, particularly in the elderly.

查看原文本刊更多论文

标准态势是一个神话：范围审查。

背景：肯德尔手册》中描述的标准姿势通常用于姿势评估。然而，并没有提供任何参考文献来支持其使用：目的：确定设计该姿势的原始来源和遵循的程序，并将其与当前有关该主题的文献进行比较：根据 PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews 的建议，使用 "站立姿势"、"梅花线 "和 "重力线 "对 PubMed 和 Scopus 进行了检索。结果：共收录了 6 篇文章和 3 本书籍：最终分析包括 6 篇文章和 3 本书。在 19 世纪早期的一部著作中发现了与肯德尔手册中描述的姿势相同的姿势，该著作的目标是在没有肌肉支撑的情况下保持静态双足站立，这是不现实的，其中还包括一些解剖学误解。此外，肯德尔手册中描述的 "理想站姿 "并不符合实际重力线、舒适姿势或因年龄、性别或种族而产生的自然姿势代偿：结论：使用这一标准来确定姿势缺陷并没有得到现有证据的支持，可能会导致许多假阳性结果，尤其是对老年人而言。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

5.70%

发文量

102

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine is an international peer-review journal published in English, with at least 10 issues published per year. Original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, special reports and letters to the editor are published, as also are editorials and book reviews. The journal strives to provide its readers with a variety of topics, including: functional assessment and intervention studies, clinical studies in various patient groups, methodology in physical and rehabilitation medicine, epidemiological studies on disabling conditions and reports on vocational and sociomedical aspects of rehabilitation.