Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31202276›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019

The role of wearable devices and objective gait analysis for the assessment and monitoring of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review.

Ananya Chakravorty, Ralph J Mobbs, David B Anderson, Kaitlin Rooke, Kevin Phan, Nicole Yoong, Monish Maharaj, Wen Jie Choy

Abstract readEvaluation StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Consensus on clinical outcome measures for lumbar spinal stenosis: recommendations from the ISSLS lumbar spinal stenosis taskforce.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Wearable sensor technology in spine care.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The past, present, and future of remote patient monitoring in spine care: an overview.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ananya ChakravortyThe University of New South Wales (UNSW), Randwick, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia. r.mobbs@unsw.edu.au.
David B AndersonSydney School of Medicine, Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Kaitlin RookeNeuro Spine Clinic, Suite 7, Level 7. Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Barker Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Kevin PhanNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia.
Nicole YoongNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia.
Monish MaharajNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia.
Wen Jie ChoyNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of wearable devices for objective gait measurement of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) patients, with a focus on relevant gait metrics.

methodsSystematic searches were conducted of five electronic databases to identify studies that assessed gait metrics by wearable or portable technology. Data was collected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines.

resultsFour articles were identified for inclusion in this review. The objectives, methodology and quality of the studies varied. No single gait metric was investigated in all four studies, making comparison difficult. The most relevant metrics reported included gait cycle, gait velocity, step length and cadence, which were reported in two studies. Two studies explored gait symmetry. Differences between LSS patients and normal healthy subjects are demonstrable using wearable technology.

conclusionsThe measurements of gait cycle, cadence, step length, gait velocity, and number of steps with wearable devices can be used in the gait measurement of LSS patients for initial assessment, and objective outcomes following interventions. However, data and analysis are limited, and further studies are necessary to comment on reliability.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeWearable Electronic DevicesGait AnalysisHumansReproducibility of ResultsSpinal StenosisTreatment OutcomeGait assessmentGait metricsLumbar spinal stenosisWearables

Identifiers

PMID31202276
PMCPMC6570936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.