Limitations of the manual supination resistance test (Conference Abstract)

Bennett, Paul J., Lentakis, Eleftheria, & Cuesta-Vargas, Antonio (2015) Limitations of the manual supination resistance test (Conference Abstract). Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 8(Suppl 2), O2.

View at publisher (open access)



  • The aim of this study was to asses results obtained from a range of commonly performed lower extremity “open and closed” chain kinetic tests used for predicting foot function and correlate these test findings to data obtained from the Zebris WinFDM-T system®. When performed correctly these tests are thought to be indicators of lower extremity function. Podiatrists frequently perform examinations of joint and muscle structures to understand biomechanical function; however the relationship between these routine tests and forces generated during the gait cycle are not always well understood. This can introduce a degree of variability in clinical interpretation which creates conjecture regarding the value of these tests.


  • 15 health subjects were recruited into this study. Subject's age, gender, activity levels and biometric data was recorded. A trained practitioner performed commonly utilised clinical assessments i.e, manual supination resistance test (MSRT), Jack's test, Lunge test, arch morphology analysis, fascia cord tension test and the hamstrings tension test [1–4]. Subjects planter foot pressure and force parameters were recorded on the Zebris WinFDM-T™ and the GAITrite™ walkway systems. SPSS (version 21 IBM) software was used to analyse the relationship between kinetic test results and key outcome measures. QUT ethics approval was obtained to conduct this research.


  • Of significance, variation in clinical interpretation may occur when assimilating results of open and close chain kinetic tests. Some interpretations appear confounded by variables such as angle and base of gait and body weight, particularly in the case of the manual supination resistance test (r= 0.661, p=0.007). When controlling for body weight, MSRT was not found to be predictive of differences in vertical ground reaction force during the gait cycle.


  • Clinical assessment of theoretical “risk factors” proves challenging. While clinically meaningful relationships are thought to exist between biomechanical tests and computer aided gait assessment, the findings of this work call into question the clinical validity of key tests and care should be exercised when interpreting their findings.

Impact and interest:

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

5 since deposited on 01 Dec 2015
4 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 90888
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Additional Information: Australasian Podiatry Conference 2015
Keywords: podiatry, biomechanics, MRST, supination, kinetics
DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-8-S2-O2
ISSN: 1757-1146
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > CLINICAL SCIENCES (110300) > Podiatry (110318)
Divisions: Current > Schools > School of Clinical Sciences
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2015 Bennett et al.
Copyright Statement: This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Deposited On: 01 Dec 2015 05:14
Last Modified: 26 Oct 2016 04:11

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page