Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Validity and reliability of remote administration of the one-leg stand, timed up and go and 30-second sit-to-stand via video call in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis awaiting decompression surgery.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis commonly affects walking ability and balance in older adults. Physical capacity tests provide valuable objective measures beyond patient-reported outcomes, but time and travel barriers hinder access to in-person testing. Remote video-based testing could improve accessibility, although evidence of its validity and reliability in this patient group remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of three commonly used tests administered remotely via video calls, compared with in-person assessments in a clinical setting.
methodsThirty-four patients scheduled for decompression surgery were enrolled from a Swedish spine clinic, of whom 28 completed at least one test session. Participants performed the one-leg stand, timed up and go, and 30-second sit-to-stand tests. Two consecutive trials of the full test battery were performed in two settings: remotely via video call from patients' homes and in person at the clinic. Participants were randomised to the order of test settings. Remote sessions were recorded and independently rated. Criterion validity (comparison between remote and in-person assessments) and intra- and inter-rater reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, with values ≥ 0.70 considered sufficient for both criterion validity and reliability. Bland-Altman limits of agreement, standard error of measurement, and smallest detectable change were also calculated.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients for criterion validity ranged from 0.83 to 0.88. Intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.95 to 0.97 in person and 0.80 to 0.98 remotely. Inter-rater reliability was 0.98 for all three tests. For the one-leg stand, confidence intervals were wider and measurement errors were greater than for the other tests. The median interval between sessions was three days. No adverse events occurred during testing.
conclusionsRemote video-based assessments of the one-leg stand, timed up and go, and 30-second sit-to-stand tests demonstrated sufficient criterion validity and intra- and inter-rater reliability in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis awaiting decompression surgery. However, the one-leg stand showed greater measurement variability and should be interpreted with caution. Taken together, these findings suggest that remote assessment of these tests may serve as a valid and reliable complement to in-person evaluation. Larger studies are needed to assess measurement error and responsiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.